I guess I never really had any doubts about the character of Pat Buchanan. Today, he simply verified what I have always known to be true. While serving as a commentator Buchanan intimated today that Gen. Colin Powell had endorsed Barack Obama simply because he was black. Buchanan disregarded the hatchet job that the Republican Party did on Powell's credibility when they sent him before the United Nations in 2003 with the misinformation that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, Buchanan disregarded the divisive tenor of the campaign that McCain has allowed Steve Schmidt to run on his behalf. Lastly Buchanan seems to expect everyone to join in his delusion that Sarah Palin was a spectacular choice of running mate by Sen. McCain.
Sec. Powell, while speaking glowingly of McCain cited a litany of reasons for his decision to endorse Sen. Obama. None of these reasons were first stated by Powell, and most have been noted by other Republicans. Tell me Mr. Buchanan, how about:
Susan Eisenhower - Daughter of Pres. Eisenhower
Tricia Moseley - former staffer for the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.
Lincoln Chafee, a former Republican Senator from Rhode Island.
Lilibet Hagel - Wife of Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel.
All of the above people are white, and Republican. All have endorsed Sen. Obama. If Powell made his decision based entirely on race, why then, did these people endorse Obama?
Buchanan wasn't done though. He went on to accuse Rep. John Lewis of switching his alliance, in the Democratic primary, from Sen. Hillary Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama also, solely on the basis of race. Once again, Buchanan ignores the likes of:
Joe Andrew
Dennis Cardoza
George McGovern
Raul Grijalva
Again, all are white and all switched from Sen. Clinton to Sen. Obama. Buchanan called Powell ungrateful because of his endorsement. This seems odd to me in that if McCain seeks, as he so fervently stated in the debate, to separate himself from George Bush, then he certainly would not seek to call in any loyalty that Powell might owe to Bush, would he?
I had always held my suspicions as to the true nature of Pat Buchanan's character, but was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because a reputable organization like MSNBC was willing to take him on. Now Buchanan has pulled MSNBC towards the mud in which he dwells and the network would be well served to cut Buchanan loose.
Who will join me in making that suggestion to MSNBC at <letters@msnbc.com> ?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 36
As for firing Pat Buchanon....by all means....yet another move by Obama movement to silence criticism. Read:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/obama_vs_free_speech.html
It is an issue much more important than any being discussed on MSNBC and the rest of the OBama media.
Interesting thinker? Yeah Buddy, I'll grant that ... but so was Joseph Mengele
I don't remember anyone holding a gun to Powell's head making him report to the UN. If Powell has lost credibility it's his own doing.
His endorsment of Obama may prove to be a Good thing for McCain.
But this doesn't change the facts about Powell and Barack H. Obama.
It was Powell for had a vial around his neck and went before the UN saying, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction... Was it not?
I have lost all respect for someone who doesnt take responsibily for their own actions.... Powell fits the Dem ticket perfectly... Never admit to any wrongdoing...
Susan Eisenhower - Daughter of Pres. Eisenhower
Tricia Moseley - former staffer for the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.
Lincoln Chafee, a former Republican Senator from Rhode Island.
Lilibet Hagel - Wife of Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel.
Like I said, if you were a real "liberal", you'd be concerned about Obama's attempt to silence his opponents.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/obama_vs_free_speech.html
But I guess you dont care...you want to fire the rare conservative on reputable (lol) MSNBC. Do you believe in book burning, too?
How do you feel about that? Are you prepared to join a militia (he asked, wondering what made him think that his debating opponent was not ALREADY a member of some Militia)
It's funny to see all the folks here on Gather who felt that if Colin Powell or Condi Rice had run they would be all for them rather than Obama (because, you know, all black folks are interchangeable, regardless of party or platform or policy) quickly denounce him for endorsing Obama. Rather than except his reasoning, they will automatically assume he endorsed Obama because he's black. But hey, it's the most expedient argument to make, and looks good on the surface.
The second amendment is similar to all the other amendments in that it grants a right to individuals. Rights are granted to individuals while power is granted to the state. The believe that the 2nd amendment grants the right to bear arms to a militia is a recent "interpretation" held by those wanting to control the masses.
"Let those who don't believe in rules have their own country to destroy."
- Joseph Farah
As far as the 2nd Amendment, worded as follows:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Some would (and have) argue that the specific nature of the wording indicates that the intent of this amendment was to allow for the defense of the democracy, which now (living document changes with the times) has a standing army for that defense.
I must say that I am not at all surprised that your view of the constitution is in line with that of Justice Rehnquist.
The Constitution was not inteded to be changed by a whim of one individual or by a select few who think it needs to be updated with time.
"In questons of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitutuion." - Thomas Jefferson
"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists,'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is scacredly obligatory upon all." - George Washington
Unfortunately our judges have turned themselves into acitvists. They make unfounded claims about the constitution. Such as a so-called right to privacy that is used to supress a state's constitutional power to make their own laws on abortion.
An unchecked Judicary results in Tyranny.
"The opinion which give to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." - Thomas Jefferson
At the establishmentof our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance." - Thomas Jefferson
We are allowing our judges and other leaders to trample over the constitution. If we don't do anything soon we will eventually lose more and more of our freedoms that the constitution grants us. Taking the individual's right to bear arms will make it easier for the elite power hungry politicians to take other freedoms away. This is one of the first steps towards tyranny.
Neither Obama nor McCain seem to have much respect for the Constitution.