You said this.
From what very little I know, he is a Buchananite wolf in GOP sheep's-clothing.
And then claimed this:
And where in this exchange or elsewhere do I actually allege that he is a Buchananite?
In other words, you lied. But I'll give you credit, you did it in a very Clintonistic way - the mealy-mouthed post to get the allegation in ("from what little I know") and then the non-denial denial ("And where in this exchange or elsewhere do I actually allege") - you don't say you didn't state such, which gives you yet another out.
Well, I did say "from what little I know, he is a Buchananite wolf in GOP's sheep's clothing." But that's more a question in my mind than a statement, even if you misunderstood it as the latter. Perhaps I should have said "may be" instead of "is." But my subsequent posts make crystal clear that "may be" is what I intended and actually meant.
That's why I keep asking you if you think he is a Buchananite. Let's try asking it one last time. Is he, in your opinion?