Air Travel » Air Travel » Buchanan: David Duke Stole My Ideas
Question:
alladinsane, why do you continue to post full stories without putting them in a form where they can be read? Posting the URL to a web story is the proper and SENSIBLE thing to do. And from the little I can make out of the hash, it has nothing to do with air travel. If I’ve missed the on topic nature of the post, a URL would be just fine, thank you.
Response:
> alladinsane, why do you continue to post full stories without putting > them in a form where they can be read? Posting the URL to a web story > is the proper and SENSIBLE thing to do. > And from the little I can make out of the hash, it has nothing to do > with air travel. If I’ve missed the on topic nature of the post, a URL > would be just fine, thank you.
Oh, Sheryl! Of course it’s on topic because Pat Buchanan can go take a FLYING fuck! Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
Response:
Who’s afraid of Pat Buchanan? His spineless Republican rivals and the political punditocracy, that’s who. – - – - – - – - – - – - By Jake Tapper Sept. 4, 1999 | Pat Buchanan is back in the presidential campaign saddle again, leaving a trail of racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic rhetorical dung behind wherever he goes. But unlike in his two previous runs, this time around virtually no one seems willing to call him on it. Not the press, not the commentators and, most significantly, not his fellow Republicans. This week, as rumors intensify that Buchanan may bolt for the Reform Party, thereby becoming a significant factor in the presidential race, the silence has become deafening. "There’s no doubt he makes subliminal appeals to prejudice," says conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, one of the few members of the news media willing to speak out about Buchanan’s bigotry. "He tries to be subtle, the comments are not direct appeals to prejudice, which is one of the reasons he gets away with it." But the subtle appeal, Krauthammer argues, "is very much heard by his audience." Subtle, but not too subtle. You knew who Buchanan was talking about, for example, during the week of the Iowa straw poll when he blamed the farm crisis on "New York bankers" and "the money boys up in New York." He didn’t say "money-grubbing kikes," but it was there, lurking in the subtext. Or, in a radio interview, when Buchanan justified his anti-immigration policies by insinuating that the character of Mexicans was generally criminal — "60,000 of them are in our prisons." The "railroad killer" is the kind of person we’re going to have more of unless we build up the border patrol, he said. He didn’t say "dangerous wetback drifters." He didn’t have to. And again, during his speech at the straw poll, he promised that, if he were elected, he’d open up China for U.S. trade — or else China will have sold its "last pair of chopsticks in any mall in the United States of America." He didn’t say "yellow menace" or "Chinks" or "they’re not like us" – not in so many words, anyway — but he seemed dangerously close to the precipice of actually uttering such words. Buchanan has a documented history of making these kinds of incendiary comments. In 1992, the Anti-Defamation League charged that Buchanan had shown "a disregard or hostility toward those not like him and a consequent displeasure with the exercise of freedom by these others … [a] displeasure … expressed in a 30-year record of intolerance unmatched by any other mainstream political figure." Even Richard Nixon found the views of his former speech writer, Buchanan, too extreme on the segregation issue. According to a John Ehrlichman memo referenced in Nicholas Lemann’s "The Promised Land," Nixon characterized Buchanan’s views as "segregation forever." After Nixon was reelected, Buchanan warned his boss not to "fritter away his present high support in the nation for an ill-advised governmental effort to forcibly integrate races." This mind-set continued as Buchanan segued from working in communications for Nixon and Reagan to bloviating as a columnist and a CNN windbag. In 1990, Buchanan spewed out another hate-filled sound bite: "With 80,000 dead of AIDS, 3,000 more buried each month, our promiscuous homosexuals appear literally hell-bent on Satanism and suicide." Many in the media, when asked by Salon News why they aren’t covering Buchanan’s slightly more veiled bigotry in 1999, suggest that he’s only a marginal political figure. "I had to think twice before I wrote about him," Krauthammer explained. "He’s simply not a player. It’s like attacking Lamar Alexander." Maybe. But Buchanan kicked Alexander’s butt in the Iowa straw poll. And while Alexander has since withdrawn from the race, Buchanan’s name is increasingly bandied about as a possible Reform Party candidate. In fact, the entire debate on CNN’s "Crossfire" last Wednesday night focused on whether Buchanan would go third party. Buchanan’s bigotry wasn’t mentioned once during the half-hour show. The Wall Street Journal’s conservative columnist Paul Gigot devoted his space Friday to a discussion of how a Perot/Buchanan deal could deny the White House to the GOP next year, again without so much as mentioning "Pitchfork Pat’s" racism. "I don’t have unlimited space," Gigot said in an interview with Salon News, explaining why he didn’t mention Buchanan’s bigotry in his column. "But my guess is that if Buchanan does become a third-party candidate, or if he does well in the primaries, the press is going to cheer him on. Members of the press like a contest. and they like the idea that he’s going to stick it to Bush." Nonetheless, Gigot says, if Buchanan "becomes a player, I assume all those things would come back." (Neither Pat Buchanan nor his campaign returned phone calls for comment for this story.) There is plenty of reason to believe that Buchanan may not be as marginal a figure among the electorate as some would like to believe. In between his racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic and anti-Semitic rhetorical outbursts, Buchanan speaks cogently and with conviction about a number of subjects — including trade, abortion and foreign policy — that clearly resonate with voters. An August poll of 1,000 voters, taken by Schroth and Associates, had Buchanan winning 16 percent of the vote in a hypothetical three-way race against Gore (35 percent) and Bush (39 percent). That’s twice as much as Ross Perot scored in ‘96, and Perot — while seemingly unbalanced — has been raked over the media coals far more than Buchanan, and for offenses far less ugly.
… read more »
no comment untill now