Playing by Obama’s Rules
by Patrick J. Buchanan
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
To observe Democrats this week, savaging one of their heroines, is to understand why the party is unready to rule. Consider: At the 1984 Democratic convention in San Francisco, an unknown member of Congress was vaulted into history by being chosen the first woman ever to run on a national party ticket. Geraldine Ferraro became a household name. And though the Mondale-Ferraro ticket went down to a 49-state defeat, “Gerry” became an icon to Democratic women.
This week, however, after being subjected for 48 hours to accusations of divisiveness by Barack Obama, and racism by his agents and auxiliaries in the media, Ferraro resigned from Clinton’s campaign. What had she said to send the Obamaites into paroxysms of rage?
She stated an obvious truth: Had Barack not been a black male, he probably would not be the front-runner for the nomination.
Here are the words that sent her to the scaffold.
“If Obama was a white man he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up with the concept.”
Note that Ferraro did not say race was the only reason Barack was succeeding. She simply said that being an African-American has been as indispensable to his success as her being a woman was to her success in 1984. Had my name been “Gerald” rather than Geraldine, I would not have been on the ‘84 ticket, Ferraro conceded.
In calling her comments racist, Barack’s retinue is asserting that his race has nothing to do with his success, even implying that it is racist to suggest it. This is preposterous.
What Geraldine Ferraro said is palpably true, and everyone knows it.
Was the fact that Barack is black irrelevant to the party’s decision to give a state senator the keynote address at the 2004 convention? Did Barack’s being African-American have nothing to do with his running up 91 percent of the black vote in Mississippi on Tuesday?
Did Barack’s being black have nothing to do with the decision of civil rights legend John Lewis to dump Hillary and endorse him, though Lewis talks of how his constituents do not want to lose this first great opportunity to have an African-American president?
Can political analysts explain why Barack will sweep Philly in the Pennsylvania primary, though Hillary has the backing of the African-American mayor and Gov. Ed Rendell, without referring to Barack’s ethnic appeal to black voters?
What else explains why the mainstream media are going so ga-ga over Obama they are being satirized on Saturday Night Live?
Barack Obama has a chance of being the first black president. And holding out that special hope has been crucial to his candidacy. To deny this is self-delusion—or deceit. Nor is this unusual. John F. Kennedy would not have gotten 78 percent of the Catholic vote had he not been Catholic. Hillary would not have rolled up those margins among white women in New Hampshire had she not been a sister in trouble. Mitt Romney would not have swept Utah and flamed out in Dixie were he not a Mormon. Mike Huckabee would not have marched triumphantly through the Bible Belt were he not a Baptist preacher and evangelical Christian. All politics is tribal. The first campaign this writer ever covered was the New York mayoral race of 1961. Republicans stitched together the legendary ticket of Lefkowitz, Fino and Gilhooley, to touch three ethnic bases. Folks laughed. No one would have professed moral outrage had anyone suggested they were appealing to, or even pandering to, the Jewish, Italian and Irish voters of New York. People were more honest then. Obama’s agents suggest that Ferraro deliberately injected race into the campaign. But this, too, is ridiculous. Her quote came in an interview with the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif., not Meet the Press.The attack on Ferraro comes out of a conscious strategy of the Obama campaign—to seek immunity from attack by smearing any and all attackers as having racist motives. When Bill Clinton dismissed Obama’s claim to have been consistently antiwar as a “fairy tale,” and twinned Obama’s victory in South Carolina with Jesse Jackson’s, his statements were described as tinged with racism.
Early this week, Harvard Professor Orlando Patterson’s sensitive nostrils sniffed out racism in Hillary’s Red Phone ad, as there were no blacks in it. Patterson said it reminded him of D.W. Griffith’s pro-KKK Birth of a Nation, a 1915 film.
What Barack’s allies seem to be demanding is immunity, a special exemption from political attack, because he is African-American. And those who go after him are to be brought up on charges of racism, as has Bill Clinton, Ed Rendell and now Geraldine Ferraro.
Hillary, hoping to appease Barack’s constituency, is ceding the point. Will the Republican Party and the right do the same? Play by Obama rules, and you lose to Obama.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 13 March 2008:
Pat Buchanan has been around politics long enough to know how the game is played, so I have to assume he approves of the Clintons’ race baiting. Ferraro was not just making an academic comment; she was acting as surrogate for Hillary and Bill. The object of constantly calling attention to Obama’s blackness is to rally the white democrats to the side of the Clintons. This strategy is succeeding in some places and failing in others, but it is the only one which holds any hope at all for Hillary getting the nomination. The problem is that, succeed or fail, it may make the democratic nomination not worth having.
If Hillary wins, the blacks and many white liberals may stay home in disgust or even go over to McCain – especially if he should pick a black running mate. And if Obama wins the nomination, white democrats will desert the party by the millions. Obama is bound to lose some white vote to racial considerations anyway, but the Clinton race baiting will cause even heavier losses. Rule or ruin – ’twas always thus with that lovely pair.
So our next president may well be McCain – the candidate of perpetual war and global empire. And I suspect he will get the explicit endorsement of one Patrick Buchanan. Those old white guys stick together.
2 Comment by Edward on 13 March 2008:
It is certainly hypocritical for Ferraro and other liberals, who have been advocating affirmative action policies for their entire careers, to suddenly criticize Obama as not having adequate experience and only being selected because he is black. By their own standards, Ferraro and all other proponents of affirmative action are racists if they oppose Obama. It is ironic, though, that the very tool that modern Democrats used to change society so forcefully is now being used as a weapon against them.
The public will not, however, finally realize that all of this anti-racist rhetoric coming from the left is a farce and almost always has been. In the end, liberal politicians do not want ‘equality’ no matter how it is defined; they want power.
3 Comment by Brutus on 13 March 2008:
What is going on in all of this is that race is finally being recognized.
Race is going to be the rallying point.
People are going to start voting, thinking and identifying by race.
Politics are going to be racial.
Some people do not like this. It doesn’t matter.
Today, people who refuse to see the importance of race are the modern equivalent of ancient people who could not bear the thought that the Earth was not the center of the universe.
The various flat Earth type society people who are still clinging to aracial politics and beliefs are going to have an importance about equal to fourth century chemistry’s relation to modern science. And all their efforts to stop this are proving to be no more effective than an attempt to dispel a tidal wave with a bottle rocket.
“Herald shall they with flaming tongues! It is coming, it is nigh, the great noontide!”
4 Comment by Brutus on 13 March 2008:
“In the end, liberal politicians do not want ‘equality’ no matter how it is defined; they want power.”
You have just told us that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
ALL politicians and the like want POWER.
The Left is perceiving that race is the deciding factor. They will respond accordingly.
The Left has always been revolutionary, hence the reason you will see the Left do an about face on race. The more perceptive thinkers have long known that race will be brought to the fore by the Left, not the Right.
The racial policies of Nazi Germany were put in place by the Left wing of that movement (National Socialism was not a strictly Right Wing operation as thought by the general public, it was a combination of Left and Right). The Right Wing seems to be incapable of doing anything but spearheading military operations,usually to the point of overextension (again, like the Right Wing brought down Nazi Germany).
Outside of military thinking, the Right is apparently static, and given to being forever on the DEFENSIVE in social and ideological terms. The Left, usually, outside of military operations, is on the OFFENSIVE. Thus the reason social change is generally brought about by the Left.
Needless to say, the camp followers of both wings are usually bewildered by the directions the upper echelons of the two wings take the movements. However, after a given amount of time, the camp followers fall into line.
This is but a manifestation of the psychology of the masses. They could take Bin Laden and install him as president on a Republican ticket and a good many Republican camp followers would soon be heard to say,in defense of criticism, “He’s our president!” Likewise, Liberals will soon be ardent racists. They will think no more of this drastic change in thinking than do the many older men and women still alive who, back in the 1950’s or 1960’s, routinely used “The N Word,” but, beginning around the 1980’s, became anti- racists. The men who once might have rushed out in the streets of the 1960’s and yelled, “Go to Hell you communist Bastards!,” we have today saw give support to politicians who they would have viewed as Communist’s in the past.
This is why it doesn’t much matter what “the average person” believes. If led, they will follow.
5 Comment by Edward on 13 March 2008:
Your words are like daggers, sharp and piercing. ‘Brutus’ certainly is a befitting title.
6 Comment by Brutus on 13 March 2008:
“Your words are like daggers, sharp and piercing. ‘Brutus’ certainly is a befitting title.”
LOL!
I actually took the name with the Brutus from the old Popeye cartoon in mind. I liked the show when I was a kid. Brutus always roughed up poor Popeye, before he had his spinach. I think this series was made in the 60’s or early 70’s. In the earlier ones and the movie the character was named Bluto. But I think Brutus was the more fitting name.
7 Comment by Joel Parshall on 13 March 2008:
The problem with Geraldine Ferraro’s comment was its petulance — its “oh, and people will call me a racist” dimension. She was not giving a mere academic discourse on the fact that Barack Obama’s biracial status and unusual life story give him an entree of some value into politics. She clearly came off as an aged feminist, sour about Obama likely snatching triumph from one who once seemed inevitable, to many, to become the first woman President. There is a difference in definition between “only” as in sine qua non and only as in that’s all there is. Her petulance kept her from sufficiently clarifying that difference, so that Obama’s campaign success so far could be easily taken as a consequence only of his race — as if Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson could have achieved the same.
I am all for calling the bluff of political correctness, but for the life of me, I can’t understand Pat’s obsession over this. Does he really think this will blow up in Obama’s face, and if it doesn’t, that there is something terribly wrong? Ferraro had to know that the way she was saying this, it would be taken as gratuitously divisive. Obama in his response is merely swatting low-hanging fruit. Pushing the racial-consciousness factor with Obama is either a losing political strategy or a disingenuous and dishonorable effort to bait him into losing his cool demeanor.
While I do not believe all politics to be tribal, I will concede to Pat that a good share of it remains so. However, on that count, I wouldn’t be so sure that large numbers of white voters will turn the political-correctness card against Obama out of wounded racial pride. So far, white males seem to have less problem with Obama than do white females. If push comes to shove, don’t be surprised if lots of white males side with Obama because, deep down, they enjoy the way he has made feminists like Geraldine Ferraro, and of course Hillary Clinton, squirm.
Finally, Pat’s warning to Republicans about playing by Obama’s rules must be a joke. For years, now, he has been doing a number on the Republican Party that it has richly deserved, and especially over foreign policy and the Iraq War. Other than Ron Paul supporters, how many Republicans are inclined to listen to him? And why should Pat be helping these GOP bozos elect John McCain, who has variously said that the jobs aren’t coming back, the illegal aliens will keep coming and we may have 100 years of war? That’s a program even more brilliant than “a chicken in every pot,” and lately McCain has even shown a willingness to permit torture — an experience the party most likely encounter on election night.
8 Comment by Jack on 13 March 2008:
Regarding Ms Ferraro’s “gaffe” … I’m reminded that the definition of ‘gaffe’ is: when a politician actually tells the truth.
9 Comment by Brock H. on 13 March 2008:
Joel Parshall @7:
“And why should Pat be helping these GOP bozos elect John McCain, who has variously said that the jobs aren’t coming back, the illegal aliens will keep coming and we may have 100 years of war?”
I’m pretty sure Pat is too smart to be doing that – helping the Republicans elect McCain, I mean. I understand your point, though. Pat Buchanan has become a voice of wisdom since his courageous 1992 bid for the presidency, but he seems to still have one weakness after all these years: the GOP. Right now I beseech you, Pat, when will you declare yourself free, remove the chains that are holding you down, and permanently cut off all ties to the GOP? You are a principled and authentic conservative, so when will you put aside all feelings and sympathies for a party that never has been conservative? Both parties swear an oath of fealty and loyalty to the American leftist establishment each election cycle, rather than an oath to uphold the Constitution and to protect the American nation and the republic on which it stands. You disappointed me by endorsing Bush’s reelection in 2004. You won’t sink even lower this year, will you? Not after McCain’s public declaration of more free trade agreements, more manufacturing jobs leaving the country, 100 years of war in Iraq, and amnesty for illegals?
As for playing by Obama’s rules, you can all expect McCain’s public denunciation of Ferraro’s remark no later than tomorrow. After all, he recently stated that it was wrong of him in 2000 to stand for South Carolina’s freedom to display its proud heritage and history on top of its statehouse. More GOP denunciations of Ferraro will follow. So goes America and its one-party government.
10 Comment by Joel Parshall on 14 March 2008:
As for playing by Obama’s rules, you can all expect McCain’s public denunciation of Ferraro’s remark no later than tomorrow. After all, he recently stated that it was wrong of him in 2000 to stand for South Carolina’s freedom to display its proud heritage and history on top of its statehouse.
You are right. It is as predictable as clockwork. By my watch, it is 7:27 a.m. Friday, March 14. I am listening to the seconds tick off and wondering how many more ticks it will be before….”and we have a bulletin, John McCain has just issued a statement on the Geraldine Ferraro comment of…..” I genuinely doubt that I will be waiting until this afternoon.
11 Comment by Jacko on 14 March 2008:
All said about a racial element in American politics may be true, but it is folly to believe the American electorate would allow an election that takes on that popular perception to proceed to a perceived racial (or, if you prefer “realist” result). In that event, the mass of American voters would more likely swing against such an impending result like an undertow, realism be damned.
The American people (or significant activist portions of them) are notorious for engaging in major potential self-damaging actions, to preserve perceptions (or in certain cases illusions) of their view of themselves as progressive, fair-minded, idealistic, etc. Witness (1) an eminently avoidable and massively destructive civil war, with destructive resonance which continues to this day; (2) expeditionary forces in WW1 when only dim notions of self-interest justified it; (3) the Abraham Lincoln brigade as leading edge into the WW2 European theatre, to orchestrated mass media cheer. The racial/diversity/etc card is always played by both parties (hardly only Democrats or liberals) when the idealism tag can easily be wedded to it, ie, the elevation of an obscure appellate court judge from a small state, Arizona, to the US Supreme Court named Sandra Day O’Conner. “Justice at Last” proclaimed Newsweek, and the Reagan administration did not mind.
Pat asks “can someone explain why” black Philadelphians will likely vote for Obama against their leaders’ choice. The implicit answer is race. But to fail to concede that these voters will behave like the rest of Americans — and swing this way only when the way can finally be paved by the perceived idealism Obama calls up, however simplistically, is to allow a massive concession. What counter-idealism will John McCain offer in this particular arena?
Incidentally, the concession of “truth” to anything ever said by Geraldine Ferraro is laughable. When this dino ran for veep in the Pleistocene Era, it took the New Republic to run a 4 page article detailing, on every line of type, yet another reason to conclude that she was never anything other than a gangster’s moll. That this “racial realism” some are so quick to credit has been injected by her and slick Willy ought to inspire sober minds to rather ask this question — whence comes this carrot, and who wields the stick?
12 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 14 March 2008:
The only way that Hillary Clinton will become president is to persuade Democratic superdelegates that Obama can not win an election against John McCain. The Democratic primaries have pretty much shown that Obama garners scant support from whites over fifty years of age, even those who are Democratic in allegiance. This is Queen Hillary’s only shot and the stilleto is drawn.
Although Hillary Clinton is a repulsive woman, one should admire her audacity and willpower. After the Democratic disaster of 1994 and the public humiliation she endured in the Lewinsky affair in 1998, who would have imagined that the Lady McBeth of Hyde Park would win two smashing elections as senator representing a state she has no ties to and then run for her wayward husband’s old job as president of the United States. Bedazzling.
And perhaps Hillary Rodham Clinton is what this country deserves. It is hard to see her do any worse than the current incumbent. With her accession to the office of president, the neo-conservatives and compassionate conservatives now in charge of the executive branch and the Republican Party might scurry back to their sewer holes along K Street and their Texas “ranch” houses, whichever the case might be. The current Wilsonian foriegn policy might end. The troops may trickle home from Iraq. Fox News and the Weekly Standard might be shuttered in the manner of Detroit. Maybe a Clinton Presidency isn’t so bad to contemplate.
13 Comment by pablo H on 14 March 2008:
“This is why it doesn’t much matter what “the average person” believes. If led, they will follow.”
True. Unfortunately, many conservatives are natural elitists for whom “populism” is the ultimate insult. A rather self-defeating position when the “elite” institutions (Media, colleges, judiciary, book publishing) are firmly controlled by the left-wing.
The left has changed society over the past 40 years due to its control of these elite institutions – not through democratic means. However, conservatives (except for Buchanan) have refused to ally themselves with the “people” even though this is the only way to stop the leftward drift. They’re constantly paralyzed by their elitism, distrust of the average person, and desire for elite approval.
Buchanan actually differs from your typical conservative in that he tried to appeal to the average person for support And was attacked to no end. In fact any person who does so is sneered at as a populist. And its no accident that the liberals constantly pick elitists such as Will, Gergan, Hewitt, Brooks, and Kristol to represent conservatives in the media. These men are harmless since they have zero appeal to the average person.
14 Comment by MAP on 14 March 2008:
The presidential race is a farce and a joke, all fluff without substance, concentrating on some idiological, non-real world, left-wing abstraction that we have been brainwashed into believing is important. We live in the non-sensible fantasy world of TV. Why bother to vote or care? Once in office, they all bow to the real power of the country anyway. The people count for nothing. But we should all be happy because money, materialism, and “progess” are our gods. How much longer can this absurdity last?
15 Comment by roho on 14 March 2008:
The comment that Patrick Buchanan is rallying around McCain is funny.
It helps to read his site.
16 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 14 March 2008:
Give him time, roho. Other than when he made his own ill-fated run, Buchanan has always ended up endorsing the Republican candidate, no matter how severely he has previously criticized that candidate. He ran against boy Bush in ‘00 when we could only suspect how bad the latter could be and then endorsed him in ‘04 when we knew for certain. PJB has some insightful and provocative things to say about politics but at the end of the day, he is and always has been a Republican hack.
17 Comment by benbrown on 14 March 2008:
As usual, Patrick Buchanan is “right on” as usual in his analysis of events.
Personally, I will vote for the candidate that will bring down this sinking ship as quickly as possible because only after a collapse of the system can we rebuild.
Speaking about which of the candidates are most fit to govern is like
trying to decide which decorator to call to decorate a house slated for demolition.
18 Comment by Joel Parshall on 14 March 2008:
Buchanan actually differs from your typical conservative in that he tried to appeal to the average person for support And was attacked to no end.
Yes, Buchanan is a past master at appealing to populist resentment of elite high-handedness, and he so often is a pleasure to listen to and to read. But carrying water for John McCain is simply a case of over-indulging one’s insticts for the savor of showing up your enemies.
There is a bigger picture here, and Buchanan needs to call a moratorium on his elite-baiting. There will be plenty of time down the road for him to pick it up again. There is nothing in the near term that elitists/liberals threaten to do or have any likelihood of accomplishing that is so scary, so radically transformative to our political society that it justifies the indifference of informed people to the slaughter, destruction and mayhem of a needless “war of choice” that, when all is said and done, erodes the genuine interests of the United States.
It is just those common people to whom Buchanan so ably speaks who are paying this price in lives spent for a crime and a mistake and in almost unspeakable maiming for many who have been spared the final measure. And if you care to think outside the box a bit, remember all those innocent Iraqi private citizens who have experienced the same and probably are even more abandoned, if they have survived. True, we don’t owe them anything politically in a direct sense, but we should hardly wish them ill for the effrontery of merely having tried to survive under Saddam Hussein — and who typically strive to lead their lives very traditionally (read that conservatively) according to the inherited ways of millennia. Indeed, conscience should require us to look intensely at what we do to these people and what we are willing to allow our country to do.
Certainly, so many of our common people in the U.S. military, including the National Guard, initially deluded themselve that their effort was given for all the good things, the genuine virtues, of American life. The majority, no doubt, are sadder but wiser today. It is inhuman for us to say that they made their bed once and must be stuck in it interminably. A hundred years. What madness!
Oh sure, the Democrats bear substantial responsibility for this, what with their acquiesence to Republican fearmongering and, previously, the promiscuous resort to military action in Africa, the Middle East and Europe during the Clinton Administration. But as bad as the Democrats are, they represent the best remaining choice — and Obama the better of the two — to wind us out of this atrocity and set our policy on a saner, more realistic footing. Of course they could disappoint us, and in many ways they probably will. But how does one justify not trying to respond, in the most basic, practical way we have at hand, to change this monstrous state of political affairs?
At root, it gets down to a simple, Christian hope that we live in ways that do no harm to our neighbor and will not tolerate our govenment being an aggressor, an enemy to the peace of ordinary people around the block or around the world.
19 Comment by Brutus on 14 March 2008:
“All said about a racial element in American politics may be true, but it is folly to believe the American electorate would allow an election that takes on that popular perception to proceed to a perceived racial (or, if you prefer “realist” result).”
Jacko just can’t say race, he has to change it to “realist.”
The rest of his post is but Wordism. He refuses to see what is right before his eyes. What is “folly” is not wanting to see that ALL other races vote by RACE and along racial lines.
He is like many people who just a few decades ago would have told us it is “folly” to believe that virtually every household would own a computer.
He would have backed that proposition up with the same kind of Wordism.
20 Comment by John Willson on 14 March 2008:
Pat, as usual, is right. But don’t you think that the “collected hits” of Obama’s pastor negate his entire bag of race-card tricks? He may be able to distance himself from the Nation of Islam, but probably not from the guy who married him and in whose church he so often speaks. Let’s put it this way: if there were a corresponding case for a white candidate, including Hillary, that candidate would be toast.
21 Comment by Eagle on 14 March 2008:
I’m betting the McCain campaign is weighing the merits of two potential vice presidential strategies: one is the race strategy (should the veep be a black – Clarence Thomas is the name floated) and the other is the “bipartisan” strategy (should the veep be a neocon Democrat – Lieberman’s name is floated). The “win-win” will be in finding a neocon black candidate who is a member of the Democratic Party.
The race card may well be played all ‘round!
It’s all enitirely irrelevant, of course. As important as who wins next week’s American Idol or Survivor episode. A sideshow designed to amuse, empassion, and, ultimately, isolate the masses from the real issues at hand. The choice of a front man (or woman) to play “chief public relations officer” for the unceasing march to the complete cultural annihilation that comes with a fully-implemented marxism in tandem with worldwide empire seems unstoppable.
22 Comment by Srdja Trifkovic on 14 March 2008:
“Play by Obama rules, and you lose to Obama.” Oh, dear… Pat is mostly right, but not always. The prospect of Obama the Candidate, or indeed President, inherently unpleasant (awful, actually) as it is, happens to be less dreadful than four years of the Clinton Brothers, let alone the potentially lethal — and I mean GLOBALLY lethal –overlordship of the certifiable madman from Arizona. Lesser Evilism has never been a morally sustainable approach, but faced wth the choice of Macbethian monsters and madmen I see the mulatto as a tolerably blank tabula rasa.
23 Comment by Joel Parshall on 14 March 2008:
But don’t you think that the “collected hits” of Obama’s pastor negate his entire bag of race-card tricks? He may be able to distance himself from the Nation of Islam, but probably not from the guy who married him and in whose church he so often speaks. Let’s put it this way: if there were a corresponding case for a white candidate, including Hillary, that candidate would be toast.
True, but so what? Certainly, this country would be better off if it could discard its “Through the Looking Glass” syndrome about discussing race. But most nonblacks have developed coping mechanisms that minimize any impacts or threats to them personally. As for the larger political sphere, blacks are only 12 percent of the population and a shrinking segment at that. The combination of prison, drugs and abortion — to say nothing of the parochialism of so many blacks — severely limits any future political impact they may have. The people most in danger are those unfortunate enough to live on the fringes of certain black neighborhoods. It is hardly a perfect situation, but it hasn’t changed much in years. Frankly, there is not a lot collectively that we can do about this. Workable solutions usually emerge at the household or small-neighborhood level.
However, there is something collectively — governmentally — that we can do that could reduce the killing and wounding of our troops, as well as their killing and wounding of Iraqis, to zero. And the favorable economic impact of doing so, in these most uncertain times, would be measurable. This is to say nothing of the favorable impact it would have on our diplomatic position and our standing in the world. There is even the prospect that it could stop the erosion of our political liberties that has advanced so under our present brownshirt regime.
The question is this. Is it worth it to vote for McCain, the neo-crazy, just so you can say that we avoided some kind of race-card trickery by Obama, or is it better to send McCain down in flames this November at the risk of some racial trumpanship by Obama?
Again, so many common white folk undoubtedly are being screwed far more by our War Regime than they are by any sleight-of-hand on race issues.
As for Obama’s now-retired pastor, I suspect that Obama will soon throw him under the bus. I heard a voice clip on the pastor the other night, and not surprisingly, he has a real stemwinding style of preaching that is a lot more black than Obama’s typical delivery. It would be far from damaging to Obama if this fellow laid into him in his customary manner as a result of being run off. The stylistic contrast between the two would not be lost on voters, and being criticized by this character would redound to Obama’s benefit.
24 Comment by Joel Parshall on 14 March 2008:
The people most in danger are those unfortunate enough to live on the fringes of certain black neighborhoods.
Obviously, what I meant is the nonblacks most in danger are those unfortunate enough, etc.
Of course, blacks themselves in certain neighborhoods are in no small danger from other blacks in the neighborhood.
25 Comment by Irving Babbitt on 14 March 2008:
In an April 30, 2007 (yes, that is two thousand and Seven-one year ago), the New York Times did a story on Obama and his Pastor. The conclusion was that Pastor Wright foresaw that Obama would have to “distance” himself from Wright at some point in the future, likely the general election. Here is the pay off quote (followed by more):
“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=3&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print
On the Sunday after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Mr. Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later he wrote that the attacks had proved that “people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns.”
Provocative Assertions
Such statements involve “a certain deeply embedded anti-Americanism,” said Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative group that studies religious issues and public policy. “A lot of people are going to say to Mr. Obama, are these your views?”
Mr. Obama says they are not.
“The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification,” he said in a recent interview. He was not at Trinity the day Mr. Wright delivered his remarks shortly after the attacks, Mr. Obama said, but “it sounds like he was trying to be provocative.”
“Reverend Wright is a child of the 60s, and he often expresses himself in that language of concern with institutional racism and the struggles the African-American community has gone through,” Mr. Obama said. “He analyzes public events in the context of race. I tend to look at them through the context of social justice and inequality.”
Despite the canceled invocation, Mr. Wright prayed with the Obama family just before his presidential announcement. Asked later about the incident, the Obama campaign said in a statement, “Senator Obama is proud of his pastor and his church.”
In March, Mr. Wright said in an interview that his family and some close associates were angry about the canceled address, for which they blamed Obama campaign advisers but that the situation was “not irreparable,” adding, “Several things need to happen to fix it.”
Asked if he and Mr. Wright had patched up their differences, Mr. Obama said: “Those are conversations between me and my pastor.”
Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama’s audition for the ultimate establishment job.
“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”
26 Comment by George Taylor on 14 March 2008:
I agree with benbrown.
I sincerely hope with all my heart that the worst possible candidate is elected President. Civil insurrection will most certainly follow, especially if militant blacks either grow angry at an Obama loss or feel emboldened by an Obama victory.
Obsessively preoccupied with pandering to the militant blacks, the entire corrupt federal government can be destroyed, using any means necessary to accomplish that task. Then, after the requisite bloodbath, we can actually return to the republic that the founding fathers authorized.
27 Comment by Thomas Miller on 14 March 2008:
Dr. Trifkovic @ 22:
Sorry, but some of us have had enough of electing “lesser evils”. It doesn’t work, because the establishment politicians are all becoming progressively more evil, thereby elevating the mean average of their malevolence.
I would urge all people who are sick of both political parties to get behind the candidate of the Constitution Party this year. It appears it will probably be Alan Keyes, an eminently qualified candidate and one who should be far more agreeable to paleo-conservatives. Voting for him would also represent a total repudiation of the affirmative action candidacy of Barak Obama.
28 Comment by Mark Higdon on 14 March 2008:
Not as an act of faith in Buchanan, but for the sheer political sport of it, I hereby bet my older, smarter brother Kirt dinner and a movie that PJB will not endorse McCain in the general election this year.
How about it, Pat? Work with me here! Dinner and a movie for you if I win the bet.
29 Comment by Fr. John on 14 March 2008:
“I see the mulatto as a tolerably blank tabula rasa.”
and why would you want a racist N***er from a racist N****er church, with a Muslim surname, who is (as you said) a ‘blank slate’ running our country? (just using the Latin term for said people, you understand…)
He’s the one who had pictures of Che Guevara in his HQ, not “Hitlery.” He’s the self-appointed Messiah of the Multicultural maniacs, NOT Hitlery.
And, because his whole Weltanschauung is about ‘being black’ Geraldine Ferraro should be canonized for speaking “truth to Power.” Sancta Geraldina, ora pro nobis…..
I left the Republicrats after it became clear that Dr. Paul was studiously marginalized. I would not, could not consider the ‘Dhimmicrats,’ if the Obamanation gets the Kingship bid. And if another ‘non-American’ (when the founding documents consider them only 3/5ths of a person, you need to realize THEY MEANT IT- for ALL TIME!) such as Keyes should sully the Constitution Party, (as insulting a thought as Buchanan choosing a black woman the last time he abortedly sought office) it is prophetically time for the needed Second American Revolution – an overt, gun-toting, Jeffersonian-decreed revolution, to restore this country to Free, White, Christian Male landowners … and NO ONE ELSE!
I am done with civility, in the face of dark hordes invading this land.I call down the imprecatory prayers of an offended God against His People, that sought to make this land a ‘city on a hill’ for White Europeans, and them alone! This is a fight to the death, and may God have mercy on His Israel, the Church- and no other! [Gal. 6:16, Heb. 13:10] For we are battling the Devil, in the person of both the Hagarenes as well as the ‘Sons of Satan.’ [John 8:44]
As much as I hate her (I affectionately call her “Hitlery”) I HOPE and PRAY that she somehow gets the Dem’s nomination (even by hook and crook!). McCrazy is EVIL, the Obamination is even MORE EVIL, and oh yes- She is EVIL, too…but at least Hiterly knows politics, is a trained politician, and (after this clear demolition of alll that she has held sacrosanct in the arena of race relations and ‘equality’) we can (at the very least) throw her out in four years- and even SHE has said that NAFTA is a FAILURE, when it was her own HUSBAND that pushed it through!
Perhaps it is the lesser of two ‘weevils’ that should be chosen, ‘inshallah’!
(Yah forbid!)
30 Comment by Thomas Miller on 14 March 2008:
Fr. John @ 29:
I think you must have stumbled across this site by mistake. I think you were looking for this one: http://www.natall.com/
Hurry on over there, and don’t let the web portal hit in you in the ass on the way out…
31 Comment by Robert Bruce on 14 March 2008:
Alan Keyes is a neocon hack and a self serving politician. His Illinois Senate Campaign was a total joke, totally shelving an otherwise honest true conservative in Illinois politics, for his farcical run that allowed Obama to be in this position in the first place. The only issue he seemed to bring up was abortion, so he was assured to lose. In fact, I think that is why the “shadowy” overlords sent him there, to throw it The Constitution Party is a joke. Geez, some of the state affiliates go by the old US Taxpayer’s Party or even other names and are so divided with regards to smaller issues like abortion they will never amount to anything. It has been totally infiltrated and corrupted by GOP professional hacks, that it is a totally ineffective vehicle for change. The very fact that 3rd parties have a mountain to climb just to get on the ballot should tell you something. The best thing would be for the abolishment of political parties altogether and having just independent individuals run. But it will be a cold day in Hell before that happens!!!!! Do yourself a favor and stay warm this November. Stay home!!!!!
32 Comment by Thomas Miller on 14 March 2008:
Robert Bruce @31
Stay home on Election Day. Well that’s a gutless strategy. Ingore politics and politicians will go away. Yeah, sure.
And no, the Constitution Party is not a joke. What’s a joke are dopes like you who don’t expect politics as usual to ever change, but you either keep voting for the usual suspects or practice defiant political apathy.
BTW, Alan Keyes is not a neocon hack. If he were, he would have won elective office by now. He has expressed virtually identical stands on the issues with Pat Buchanan. But you probably regard Buchanan as a joke too.
33 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 14 March 2008:
#28 – You’re on, Mark. #31 – You’re right about Keyes being a neo-con hack, Mr. Bruce. I used to be a supporter of his, but I learned my lesson. I’ve already voted for Ron Paul in the primary and continue to support him in the Texas caucuses. I suspect come November I really won’t have a candidate.
34 Comment by David Collins on 14 March 2008:
@32
Mr. Miller, voting for the Constitution party is the same thing as staying home in November. Accept the fact that politics as usual won’t change, until America collapses. And that’s no joke.
35 Comment by G. Oren on 15 March 2008:
I’ve seen Pat make these same points on MSNBC over the past few nights. Indeed, Obama has recently gained a huge percentage of the vote among black democrats, but he didn’t start out that way. Only after it appeared that he offered a credible candidacy did his percentage among blacks begin to rise – they were initially cool to him. Meanwhile, Hillary has consistenly enjoyed around a 60% -40% advantage among white women – and there are plenty more of them than blacks. Tribal and gender loyalties are part of the pie – it is unavoidably so – but the point of GF’s comments was to take umbrage that Obama’s advantage among one “minority group” was providing the slim margin needed to trump the old time feminists dream for their “minority group”. She conveniently ignores the fact that: 1) He didn’t start out as a “Black” candidate like Sharpton or Jackson – and that support from the black community is actually rather late in coming to him and; 2) It is among white men and those younger than 50 that Obama garners most of his numerical support.
As a dedicated paleocon, I gave up on the stupid party some time ago. I am, I guess, just naive enough to think that Obama – who has had the right position about Iraq from the beginning, and who seems to understand the need to clear the decks of partisan rancor, cronyism and corporate socialism globaloney – may offer the best option for the future. There is no “perfect” candidate that has a chance of being elected. I’ve “wasted” my vote before in support of third party candidates. This time, I caucused with the democrats in my precinct (Texas) and will be an Obama delegate at our county convention. There is something happening in the hinterland, an awakening of interest that has not happened in many years. The press may be in love with Obama because of the horse race factor, or because he is a relatively fresh face. But, I think there is simply a great hunger among many Americans, from all classes and walks-of-life and especially among those younger than 50, to scrape away the pox that has covered the skin of this nation for the past 15 years. Can Obama really make a difference? Who knows for sure. But I’m willing to take the chance that he will be different enough from Hillary and McCain that the nation as a whole will be better off.
36 Comment by Bronco on 15 March 2008:
Pat is rallying for a lesser evil. He’s been always trying to pull things back, because he’s conservative. Maybe McCain will allow more immigrants and more jobs going overseas, but do you think Obama will actually save (white) America after all that his “people went through”?
Surfing accros the internet I found an interesting fact. Smarter white nationalists see their chance in Obama winning presidency.
37 Comment by News Flash on 15 March 2008:
News flash: Buchanan will NOT support McCain. He even said so this morning on TV. Just because he criticizes a black-nationalist nutjob like Obama does not mean he supports McCain. Buchanan has hinted that he may not even vote in this election.
38 Comment by Frank on 15 March 2008:
Bob Barr of the LP and possibly Chuck Baldwin or Judge Moore of the CP will be alternative options.
39 Comment by Allen Wilson on 15 March 2008:
What will be the longer term results of this? Is this a glimpse of things to come, the first crack in a coming fissure within the Jackass party, the fissure in the multi-ethnic coalition of race baiting ideologues and sociopaths upon whom the party has depended for holding power for the last few decades?
It’s real fun to see the birds coming home to roost. A racial divide within the Jackass party! It’s so sweet to watch.
40 Comment by Rick on 15 March 2008:
I’ be voting for Davy Crockett!
41 Comment by Thomas Miller on 15 March 2008:
Frank # 38:
I don’t think I could support anybody on the Libertarian Party ticket. A major plank in their party platform is Open Borders. Voting for the LP means voting for the Wall Street Journal and the Cato Institute. No thanks.
I like Chuck Baldwin as a columnist, but a Baptist minister has no business running for public office. What goes for Huckabee, goes for him too. As a former state Supreme Court justice, I suppose Roy Moore is acceptably qualified to run for president. I’d be willing to vote for him.
42 Comment by Thomas Miller on 15 March 2008:
Allen @ 39:
Didn’t you always suspect that the Democratic Party would ultimately be reduced to running on a “Lets gang up on white guys” platform? I’m not surprised that strategy hasn’t panned out. Accept for slutty young white women who hop in bed with black guys just to upset their father, most white women simply don’t like black men, and don’t trust them. A coalition of white women and black men was doomed to fail.
43 Comment by Brutus on 15 March 2008:
The more I peruse Conservative sites and read and listen to the various commentary espoused, the more aware I become of a fundamental confusion embedded in the ideology.
For example, compare post 30 with the same writer’s comment on post 42.
A lengthy book could be produced documenting similar examples.
44 Comment by Sean Scallon on 15 March 2008:
Gee, I hope Pat’s voting for the CP candidate this year. Because if the Democrats aren’t ready to rule as he says, I hope he doesn’t validate eight year of Republican misrule.
45 Comment by Thomas Miller on 15 March 2008:
Brutus @ 43
There is no conflict between those posts. In the earlier post, i was simply responding to what sounded like a bunch of Aryan Nations-type blather from a fellow laying into Alan Keyes. In the latter post, I was pointing out that white women and black men make strange political bedfellows ( and strange bedfellows in the literal sense as well!).
Just because one is opposed to multi-culturalism doesn’t mean you have to hang a swastika on your wall…
46 Comment by Brutus on 15 March 2008:
@45,
Very well.
However, I also have noticed over the years that these “movements” tend to degenerate into a “as long as he belongs to the same country club as I” or such, and it becomes merely a crusade to sustain a certain social status or belief. That is, a movement to preserve Western Civilization and the people who made it POSSIBLE will be rendered impotent and FAIL because the movement came to a point where it advocated the proposition that two hundred million aliens were OKAY so long as they dressed nice and said the right things.
Bill O’Reilly talks a lot about America becoming “Secular.”
Not so.
When a small town of one thousand mostly white Christian people experiences a demographic increase of two thousand Muslims from Pakistan, that town has not went “Secular.”
47 Comment by Brutus on 15 March 2008:
I looked at the website given at post 30. The first thing I saw was this:
“Whenever different races are unnaturally forced into mutual contact, there is bound to be trouble. And there is bound to be injustice, committed by each side against the other. Given that fact, what now is to be done? Well, the Jewish establishment in the West generally and in the United States in particular has been pushing the idea that the solution MUST be more and more and MORE mutual contact, and that contact must be forced onto the people by the power of law, if necessary. In other words, their answer to the problems that arise when the races come into contact is to demand MORE contact. When looked at in this light, this Jewish proposal is the biggest damn-fool stupid notion ever conceived.”
This statement is essentially correct.
I fail to see the problem, unless one is adverse to straight forward talk. Myself, I get tired of those who fear, for whatever reason, to say what they want to say and must resort to code words and circumlocution.
I experience no trouble as a result of my commentary.
48 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 16 March 2008:
Mr. Brutus, if you “experience no trouble as a result of” your commentary, why don’t you use your real name?
49 Comment by waiting on 16 March 2008:
Brutus,
You are absolutely correct in that there is something wrong with the conservative “let’s preserve Western Civ but be nice about it” movement.
50 Comment by waiting on 16 March 2008:
Clyde Wilson,
“Mr. Brutus, if you “experience no trouble as a result of” your commentary, why don’t you use your real name?”
Hehe.
It’s pretty ridiculuous what the whole system has come down to. Make the statement that you want to preserve white Christian civilization and you run the risk of losing your job.
What would have been unthinkable in pre-modern America is now commonplace…
51 Comment by Haywood Hale on 16 March 2008:
It has long been a ploy of the corporate Jewish media in the U.S. which is anti-Christian and anti non-Jews to use the racism card oversensitively – in its domination of the media – so as to splinter America into camps or groups largely antagonistic toward, due to the spin in the media, the white Christian majority. There is no denying this unless one is to deny history. However precisely due to mainstream media domination one reading this perhaps for the first time would wonder if it was actual or not, or worse if I in simply telling the truth weren’t also “anti-Semitic.” That’s a much worse thing to be of course thanks to the media spin for the past 50 years, than if one were anti-Christian or anti-European etc. This cosncious ploy or strategem in dominating the media and oversensitizing so-called racial matters becomes a powerful polemic favoring the Jewish camp or tribe, obviously, at the expense of non-Jews. Jews cannot argue that they have melted into the American pot or stew since they continue to identify themselves as a blood group in everything, including insisting on referring to themselves as ‘Jewish Americans’ in that order. While at the same time, when it suits them, ‘preaching’ cosmopolitanism and so-called universalism (for others.)
*Obama’s preacher’s remarks came to light now for the first time since he apparently denounced Israel and the U.S. as state sponsors of terrorism. Israel against the Palestinian people whose land they have stolen and want to continue stealing, and the U.S. for being a mean Empire with its troops in 140 countries around the world. And a nation recently which invaded and destroyed another nation Iraq like a Nazi Germany might have invaded Poland when it was not attacked first by said nation it invaded. If these travesties don’t make us ‘terrorists’ what are we? WHAT ARE WE?
I recall one of the more self-serving economic arguments for the invasion of Iraq. I.e. “We must invade Iraq [or] oil will be over $100 per barrel.” … Actually at the time I translated that warning this way: “We must invade Iraq [so] oil will be over $100 per barrel.” And in my own mind that of course was the Standard Oil argument for the war. Standard Oil [i.e. Exxon's] profits have never been higher than today and oil is over $100 per barrel. But they were just going along for the ride with the more powerful Jewish Lobby in the U.S. known as AIPAC which perceived Iraq as a threat to Israel’s desire for complete hegemony in the Middle East. The Jewish Lobbies in behalf of Israel are worldwide. But that’s the real reason Obama is in trouble suddenly [in] the U.S. MEDIA which SETS the nation’s agenda, for what his preacher said putting Israel’s and our policies honestly in the light.
Of course Obama has to play the game and respond in MEDIA speak to these attacks starting with Gerry Ferraro who served as point to get the ball rolling whether it was unwittingly or not. After which the Clintons prisoners of the mainstream MEDIA as well and who have to play the game can only sit back and see if it is helpful to their own ambitions for political power here in the U.S. or perhaps not. The Jewish MEDIA machine starting with the New York Times have endorsed Hillary since she is perceived as more dependable a lacky for Israel than Obama may prove to be. Although now Obama has denounced his own preacher – to win favor in the eyes of the Jewish Media Machine. That’s who or what he has to appease if he is to remain a viable candidate for President.
Consider the following in the U.K. as well:
“Neo-Lefties, the Second Boot of the Jewish Lobby”
-by Bob Finch
http://www.israelshamir.net
The British Jewish lobby in Britain has been intimidating anyone in the country who criticizes, let alone condemns, the illegal state in Palestine and its racist warmongering policies. The same is true in America as it is in the rest of the western world. The greater the social status, media prominence, or political position, of those criticizing the Jewish apartheid state, the greater the Jewish intimidation perpetrated against them.
(continue reading at the above link)
before you do-?-Do you still actually deny this even to yourself?
_____
52 Comment by Frank on 16 March 2008:
Mr. Miller,
Bob Barr’s record is strong on immigration.
—
Regarding the original topic, Obama is getting hit hard for his ties to his church. McCain might not need to do anything.
53 Comment by Frank on 16 March 2008:
Wow… take a look at this from the CofCC: Obama’s Kenyan Jo-Lou tribe is “involved in a tribal war and advocates Islamic Sharia law in Kenya.”
Wow Obama’s wife, his relatives, his church… will he denounce them all?
54 Comment by Brutus on 16 March 2008:
Clyde Wilson,
My name is Robbie Burns.
Robbie Burns
810 Stonegate Dr.
P.O. Box 191
Burnside, Ky 42519
(606)561-3806
I used my name on forums and such until recently. The reason I stopped was because I noticed that virtually the entire world used only monikers. Therefore I began using “Brutus.” I thought it was a “cool” moniker.
Now, Clyde, I believe you are aware that most people use only a made up moniker. It is simply the style of the Internet apparently.
Now let’s get back to it.
55 Comment by Brutus on 16 March 2008:
Speaking of Sharia law, there is now a Sharia law court set up in Canada. I understand Canada is the first Western country to set up this court. Quebec, however, has already rejected it.
As near I can tell Canada is going fast.
I suggest anyone who does not already know about Sharia law and the implications of a Sharia law court inform themselves regarding this serious matter.
56 Comment by Frank on 17 March 2008:
Mr. Haller,
I agree with what you say, or at least I’d temper it with I suspect Obama would be best.
However, Obama could be best mostly because he would cause Americans to look within at multiculturalism rather than without at scary Muslims. Or am I mistaken? If such is the case, then Obama can provide the same benefit simply by running a close campaign.
I know McCain is unstable and egotistical, but surely he isn’t so that he’d nuke another major power.
—
Btw, I recall your being expelled for rudeness, but it’s not my business. Clearly their expertise is valuable else we wouldn’t all be though.
57 Comment by Frank on 17 March 2008:
Ah, and when running a close campaign, maximal benefit would be derived by attacking him, as well as McCain, with everything we’ve got, pointing out the one’s ties to anti-white and black nationalist groups and the other’s long history as an open borders traitor.
Americans were manipulated into viewing the world as freedomism v. Islam, and now the true major conflict can be restored to them: globalism (especially via mass immigration and multiculturalism) v. Americans.
However, when opposing multiculturalism, I think it’s important to remember the true end is interculturalism, that is once the American culture is wholly destroyed it is replaced with another more suited for global harmonising.
So, it might come to pass that multiculturalism is actually defended against absorption into the Borg… imagine that.
58 Comment by Allen Wilson on 17 March 2008:
Thomas Miller @42: Yes, you’re right on all points. It seems that maybe, at long last, both parties are finally entering the end game. A confrontation with Russia over Kosovo would hurt both parties, but would hurt the imperial Elepthants worse, and the race-pandering and race baiting and gender baiting is now backfiring on the Jackasses, and there are bound to be ever widening fissures to develop within that party over race and ideology long term. It cant be otherwise for a party of minorities who only joined together each for it’s own selfish benefit, held together only by mutual hatred for whitey and distrust of each other. The Democrats are the Soviet Union of political parties, bound to break apart in the end as each constituent group fights with the next and breaks away when it becomes impossible for the rulers of the party to satisfy all the different interests.
59 Comment by Thomas Miller on 17 March 2008:
Frank @ 52
Ok, I’m convinced Bob Barr is a better choice than Alan Keyes. I just wish he wasn’t involved with the goofy Libertarian Party. Whatever its faults, the Constitution Party isn’t nearly the joke the LP is.
60 Comment by B. Scott on 17 March 2008:
“All politics is tribal.” – Patrick J. Buchanan
Either Mr. Buchanan is having a change of heart wrt industry and its dependent workforce (see his article ‘The Second Battle of NAFTA’) or his political stance is incoherent.
Sen. McCain’s expressed desire to remain militarily involved in Iraq for 100 years fits nicely with those who desire to conserve 20th century’s status quo, i.e. neo-conservatives, and its doctrine of peace through perpetual conflict. Surely he will win the presidency; for, to fulfil its mission to save American lives, the military industrial complex would like nothing more than another 100 years. Likewise the proletariat, the Orcs of industrialism, would benefit from McCain securing their “freedom” for another 100 years.
Apparently Mr. Buchanan has stated he will not support McCain, and that he may not vote – A highly commendable civil act of defiance! Is he changing tribes?
61 Comment by Robert Alpert on 20 March 2008:
Much as I like Pat I think he is wrong on this one. 1) Ferraro is –no way of saying it felicitously– a sleaze (and may even be a racist) but more importantly 2) Pat has to decide as do all honorable men of the right whether reject the three stooges (Barak Hils and John) as Yahoos or as I fear he will do bite his lip and vote for Johnny). Book 4 of Gullivers Travels says it all. I hope Pat will re read it.
62 Comment by Peter RV on 21 March 2008:
Heywood Hale, has got it right on the money.
If one takes the AIPAC factor out of the picture , one is bound to talk nonsense. This is what apparently happened with Pat Buchanan.
What a disappointment from a man I voted for whenever he was running for anything.
I am coming to a conclusion that an overdosis of the conservative ideology might possibly lead to an early senility (just remember what happened to Bill Buckley, who ended up by cheerfully handing the National Review over to the NeoCons).
I don’t believe Pat can redeem himself in my eyes, after this (intentional in my mind), tactical sidesweep of his in favour of Clintons and McCain.
So goes down another of my heroes.
Oh well, as they say,good riddens to bad rubbish.
Somebody who can’t recognize AIPAC stooges can’t command my respect.
I will vote for Obama if he gets the nomination.
Never again for Pat Buchanan.
To those who want to have a better view of Rev.Wright imbroglio, I advise reading Tim Wise’s thorough article on the subject:
http://www.counterpunch.org/wise03182008.html