Yeah, I think you're on to something there, Williebee.
No. He's not.
Pat Buchanan hasn't reconsidered a damn thing. He's still as hateful, bigoted and hostile to anything and everyone that doesn't fit into his narrow and xenophobic view of America.
In his column Buchanan writes, One part of America loves her history, another reviles it as racist, imperialist and genocidal. Old heroes like Columbus, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee are replaced by Dr. King and Cesar Chavez.
What is it about Martin Luther King Jr. and Cesar Chavez that pisses off Buchanan so much? Is it because they were men of peace and not soldiers and explorers or is their skin color that makes King and Chavez unworthy to be considered "heroes?"
Buchanan is older, but he hasn’t mellowed with age like a fine wine. If anything he’s become even more of a bitter old bigot, homophobe and anti-Semitic than he was. Just as recently as June, Buchanan and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow argued over his opposition to affirmative action and Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court.
Buchanan’s history of making inflammatory remarks defending Hitler, denigrating homosexuals, demonizing feminists and degrading minorities should forever disqualify him from appearing on a national news channel. Instead, he’s “Uncle Pat” who plays the role of the crotchety curdmudgeon for Maddow so she can shake her head sadly over how backwards and bigoted he is.
As recently as Buchanan March 2008 had reacted to candidate Barack Obama’s speech about race and raged where was the gratitude from Blacks for all White Americans had done for them?
…America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.
(Jeremiah) Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.
Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.
Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants.
Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.
We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?
Buchanan conveniently forgets if White Americans hadn’t set sail to enslave Black Africans, their damn “Christian salvation” would have been unnecessary in the first place.
Only a White supremacist with a delusional sense of history could even suggest Black Africans ended up with the better end of the deal by being slaves. That, or a total fool.
Then, there's Buchanan's perspective that Adolf Hitler was a great warrior who has been given a bad rap.
“Those of us in childhood during the war years were introduced to Hitler only as a caricature…Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great War, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him. But Hitler’s success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path.”
- St. Louis Globe – Democrat, Aug 25, 1977
What’s the difference between Buchanan praising Hitler as “individual of great courage” possessing both “extraordinary gifts” and “genius” and MSNBC giving him a national platform and Louis Farrakhan calling the Fuhrer “wickedly great?” Is it that Farrakhan is a reviled figure by the good ol’ boy mainstream media while Buchanan is regarded as a kindred spirit who occasionally says off-the-wall things about Nazis?
Buchanan is a aging xenophobe and racist who longs for the America of his youth where women stood by their man, Negroes knew their place, Hispanics weren't causing panic and the homos stayed in the damn closet.
I like that his fantasy America is dying right along with him.
Last edited:
