[DugwayDuke]

"Attack the messenger, not the message, guilt by association, change the subject. Damn! Why not just call the author a racist homophobe nazi!"

Why not? Simply because I don't believe Buchanan and his cohorts are "racist", etc. Now, why do you believe that pointing out that this man was a campaign manager for Pat is "attacking the messenger, not the message"? My comment very clearly points out that this message is the message of Buchanan, a message clearly and overwhelming rejected in the last election.

[StriperSniper]

Now, why do you believe that pointing out that this man was a campaign manager for Pat is "attacking the messenger, not the message"?

Since every sentence but your last had 'Buchanan' or 'Buchananites' in it without responding to any of the points in the article.

My comment very clearly points out that this message is the message of Buchanan,

No, the only part of any Buchanan message you mention is trade policy which is not even mentioned in the article. Granted the defending the borders issue in the article is pure Buchanan but you did not address that in your reply.

a message clearly and overwhelming rejected in the last election.

That may be true, but if you look at any poll today, after 9/11, defending the borders ala Buchanan, is an overwhelming winner (as a single issue). Every election is different, so if it was a loser last time that does not mean it would be next time.