Thanks for the correction. I must have gotten a bit confused but I stand by the essence of my comment.
Posted on 07/28/2008 11:16:50 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
May he live to be 120, but when Bob Shrum eventually goes to his reward, his epitaph could read "Here lies Shrum. He thought he was great. But his presidential record . . . was 0-8."
After Shrum taunted Pat Buchanan as "living on Mars" for supposedly overestimating the power of affirmative action as an issue, Pat fired back, reminding Shrum of his dubious lifetime achievement of having consulted on eight losing Dem presidential campaigns with nary a win.
View video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Thanks for the correction. I must have gotten a bit confused but I stand by the essence of my comment.
The essence of your comment was that Buchanan “ran on the cult-commie ticket with Fulani.” In other words, the essence of your comment was a lie.
Maybe b/c PB is soft on Nazis, an incompetent ‘historian’..... and just an all-around embarrassment to conservatism.
btw, it’s not YOUR thread, so take your thread policing somewhere else.
Pat Buchanan Interview
National Public Radio
TALK OF THE NATION
May 30, 2000
Mr. Buchanan: . . .Lenora Fulani is an individual who was running, who was in competition for control of the Reform Party in New York. She was probably the third largest force in the party, after the Perot-Ventura forces, and she indicated that she wanted to support me for president of the United States. I accept that support.
Let me say this, Juan, you know where I stand. You’ve known me for years. I’m socially conservative. It’s not likely Buchanan’s going to convert to Marxism in his old age.
http://www.buchanan.org/pa-00-0602-npr.html
I don’t agree with Buchanan on his opinion about Israel or even WWII. But, he doesn’t hate Jews.
Buchanan literally puts America first. He does not want to get involved in the world’s wars.
You can attempt to smear his name by saying he hates Jews; but, it doesn’t make it true.
I did not say he hates Jews. I said he is “soft on Nazis” - which is a way of saying what is patently obvious, that he puts little value on efforts in the 1930s and 40s to slow or stop the march of Hitler’s Nazi legions and the growing Holocaust. Someone of that ilk may not have any particular feelings about Jews, I don’t know. But he exists in a weird pre-1939 time warp and his account of history is pathetic.
He thinks it is none of America’s business.
People have a right to say about history...what if. He thinks things could have been done better. That doesn’t make him suspicious or evil.
Your method allows no one speak.
Don’t tell me, I’m not the one bawling about him.
I marvel at those who go on these threads when they hate him.
That view died at Pearl Harbor and was interred on Dec. 11, 1941 when Hitler declared war on the USA. Ever since, only morons, dinosaurs, and anti-Semites could think that what happens with large-scale, highly expansionist fascist regimes could be “none of America’s business.”
We tried very hard to stay out of it (too hard, I would say) but WWII came to find us, in spite of the strong presence of the “America First” isolationist movement.
My “method” as you call it does not preclude anyone from saying anything. Say anything you like, please. But some views are too idiotic to be worthy of MY time so you can your fellow Buchanan fans can go on babbling uselessly, like the sound of one hand clapping. No person I can respect would take such ideas seriously.
True conservatives would never appear on a podium with a commie like Fulani or anyone else in her cult. The right wing populists share much with their left wing counterparts, except for their feelings about big central gummints.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Fulani and Buchanan had nothing in common ideologically. Fulani had become a power in the Reform Party, and supported Buchanan as a way of gaining power over her rivals in that very dysfunctional party. Once Buchanan had the nomination in hand, and Fulani saw she was getting nothing from him, she walked out of the party’s convention and denounced him. The Reform Party that emerged from that convention was a Buchananite party, and Fulani was not part of it.
You should do more research. The focus shifted a bit with Patsy, but Fulani and he agreed on much more than they disagreed about. Pat and his friends Sobran and the late Sam Francis saw eye to eye with Fulani and her ilk about a lot of things...though not all.
What is your source for this fantasy? Specifics, please. I was at the Reform Party convention in Long Beach, and cheerfully waved good-bye to Fulani as she and her delegates walked out of the convention, never to return. Pat Buchanan saw eye to eye on Fulani on nothing, and the same is certainly true for Sam Francis.
International bankers for one...
Since the Long Beach convention, Buchanan has written a half dozen books, and a twice weekly column, none of which approvingly cited Lenora Fulani on anything. Sam Francis also wrote a twice weekly column, plus a regular monthly column in Chronicles, never once citing Fulani on anything. There is zero evidence supporting your fantasy of an ideological convergence between the three, none.
Liberals and progressives who join in coalitions with right wing populists see the anti-corporate and anti-government arguments. What they don't see (or choose to ignore) is the flip side of what is called the "producerist" narrative of right wing populism. The producerist narrative sees a hard-working productive middle class and working class being squeezed from above and below by social parasites. Historically, this has led to scapegoating and conspiracy theories of power.
The overall outcome of the producerist model of populism is a broad social and political movement sometimes called "Middle American Nationalism" or "The Radical Center" or "Middle American Radicals." Whatever the label, this is a form of repressive populism with a producerist narrative.
The list of scapegoats seen as among the alleged elite parasites includes international bankers, Freemasons, Jews, globalists, liberal secular humanists, and government bureaucrats. The parasites below are stereotyped as lazy or sinful, draining the economic resources of the productive middle, or poisoning the culture with their sinful sexuality.
The so-called "lazy parasites" in the producerist narrative of right wing populism are frequently Blacks and other people of color, immigrants, and welfare recipients.
The so-called "sinful parasites" in the producerist narrative of right wing populism are frequently gays and lesbians, abortion providers, and feminists.
And the issue goes far beyond Buchanan and the Reform Party. As the size of the repressive populist sectors grow, politicians and activists within electoral reform movements try to recruit the populists toward participation within electoral political frameworks. As they seek votes, some politicians begin to use populist rhetoric and pander to the scapegoating. At the same time the Far Right seeks to pull right wing populists further toward bigoted ideological positions and aggressive insurgency or violence.
This posting from a far-left website proves what exactly? That the far left hates Buchanan and doesn’t think anyone should support him? I could have told you that. What you have not shown—because you can’t—is that Buchanan and Francis endorsed the ideas of Fulani. In their writing, you will see plenty of references to such eminent conservatives as James Burnham and Russell Kirk. You will see zero references to the ideas of Lenora Fulani.
I understand that you are just being difficult and obtuse since I assume you are bright enough to understand that individuals can agree with others’ ideas without specifically citing that person. Think of Buchanan and Fulani’s ideas as a Venn diagram with significant overlap.
No, you are the one being difficult. You began by spreading one lie about Buchanan—that Fulani was his running mate—and then, when confronted with the truth, began spreading another, that there was considerable ideological affinity between Fulani, Buchanan, and Sam Francis. You have produced zero evidence to support this second lie, unless an attack on Buchanan produced by a far-left outfit is considered evidence. (By the way, the person behind the analysis you cited is Chip Berlet, a former vice chairman of the National Lawyers Guild, which was established as a Communist front organization). In fact, you have not demonstrated that you are actually familiar with the works of Buchanan and Francis. I invite you to read them: they contain more insight than anything produced by Chip Berlet and his fellow travelers on the far left.
Obviously, you never admit you mistakes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.