Donahue

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by demsformd
I can't believe that a woman would agree with Buchannan's comments about how women are not as ambitious as men.

Because they're not. Which is not to say it's 100% across the board. But I am very confident in saying that the average woman isn't as ambitious or aggressive in their career as the average man. Especially back in 1983, when he made the comment.

And how is the first comment about integration not racist?

Because it's true. Government mandated integration has caused more problems than it solved. Blacks didn't like it, either, if you care to remember. Also, the "but even more so, poor and well-to-do" tells me he wasn't being racist, merely realistic.

he still is a representative of the conservative ideology that all o f you subscribe to.

Geez! So now you know what WE think! Did SMC plant that microchip while I was asleep last night? I am not a fundamentalist or even a Christian in any form. I'd vote for homosexual marriage in a second. I've changed my stance so that I am now not only pro-choice, but in big time favor of abortion. You can find posts all over this site where I've stated those views. What part of that is conservative ideology?

And again, I could care less about Pat Buchanan - he's a has-been. Note that he has never taken a Republican nomination? That should tell you what Republican voters think of him. So I hardly think you can use him as an example of "conservative Republicanism" when that party's voters have rejected him at every turn.

 

[vraiblonde]

Here's something else that's interesting to note:

Republican candidates give no credence to the fringe element that happen to share a party label with them. They don't meet with David Duke or Jerry Fallwell.

The Democrats, however, do take their fringe element very seriously. They march in transgender parades. They get the blessing of Al Sharpton.

Isn't that interesting?

 

[MGKrebs]

Vrai, stop being obtuse. Buchanan has been a repub his whole life. He worked for Nixon. He's conservative. He went Reform because he wasn't going to get the repub nomination. He wanted them to go farther right, and they didn't quite get far enough for him.

So first you say you have no problem being lumped in with him, now you say you could care less. If you are going to put me in the same box with crying schoolgirls on TV, I get to put you in this box, until you denounce it.

Pat Buchanan quotes

"The War Between the States was about independence, about self-determination, about the right of a people to break free of a government to which they could no longer give allegiance,"

On race relations in the late 1940s and early 1950s: "There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The 'negroes' of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours." (Right from the Beginning, Buchanan's 1988 autobiography, p. 131)

White House advisor Buchanan urged President Nixon in an April 1969 memo not to visit "the Widow King" on the first anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination, warning that a visit would "outrage many, many people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue and perhaps worse.... Others consider him the Devil incarnate. Dr. King is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history." (New York Daily News, 10/1/90)

In a memo to President Nixon, Buchanan suggested that "integration of blacks and whites.... is less likely to result in accommodation than it is in perpetual friction, as the incapable are placed consciously by government side by side with the capable." (Washington Post, 1/5/92)

Trying to justify apartheid in South Africa, he denounced the notion that "white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this." (syndicated column, 2/7/90) He referred admiringly to the apartheid regime as the "Boer Republic": "Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin her with sanctions?" (syndicated column, 9/17/89)

"There is nothing wrong with us sitting down and arguing that issue that we are a European country." (Newsday, 11/15/92)

In a September 1993 speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan described multiculturalism as "an across-the-board assault on our Anglo-American heritage."

Writing of "group fantasies of martyrdom," Buchanan challenged the historical record that thousands of Jews were gassed to death by diesel exhaust at Treblinka: "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody." (New Republic, 10/22/90)

In his September 1993 speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan declared: "Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free." (ADL Report, 1994)

"Rail as they will about 'discrimination,' women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism." (syndicated column, 11/22/83)

On another note, I happen to like this one:

"Americans must come to terms with the reality that the world does not
want our dominance, no matter how beneficial we believe it would be.
Efforts to impose a U.S.-led New World Order are going to be fiercely
resisted and costly, and eventually, they are going to fail..... It's time for
a foreign policy that puts national interest ahead of any obligation to
some mythic "international community." It's time to tell the world that,
henceforth, we, too, shall put our own country first. "
- Pat Buchanan, Column, 2/9/98

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Here's something else that's interesting to note:

Republican candidates give no credence to the fringe element that happen to share a party label with them. They don't meet with David Duke or Jerry Fallwell.

"David Duke was the chairman of the Republican Party in St. Tammany Parish, the only majority GOP county in Louisiana. Duke twice carried this district in state-wide elections for U.S. Senate and Governor in '90 and '91."


Guess a couple of people in the party liked him

 

[MGKrebs]

Hmmm. Coupla' threads going at once here.

I am almost ready to concede that there are just about as many homeless now as there were in the eighties. But I am NOT ready to concede a media bias regarding the issue. Here's my understanding and belief, and what I will be trying to support:

Reagan cut 200 million or 2 billion from HHS (I'll be looking up the details). This caused many social service organizations to cut back or close down, drastically increasing the "homeless" population.

I guess I have to admit that I have been mixing "homeless" with "street people", and they are not really the same thing. If "homeless" people are in mental institutions or hospitals or shelters, we don't really see them, and they are being cared for. But they are still homeless. It is when they are on the street that they become more visible, and therefore more of an issue and a story.

So sometime during Bush I and/or Clinton, a lot of this funding was restored. The visible part of the homeless population decreased, but the overall "homeless" population was still the same.

THAT is why it was less of a story.

In any case, in my first glance at looking at this information, I find that about 40% of homeless people have jobs; they just can't afford housing. And most people are homeless for only a short time. On any given night there may be 500,000 to 600,000 homeless, but a little over a million will be homeless over the course of a year.

Also, these are probably among the hardest statistics to find. They basically seem to count those who seek some kind of service, whether it is food or shelter or a job. Therefore, there is a dramatic increase in the "statistical" homeless population in the winter months, presumably because many more seek shelter.

Anyway, I'm learning some stuff, but it's going to take a while to put together anything useful and concise.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by SmallTown
Guess a couple of people in the party liked him

Yeah, but it would be, in fact, just a couple.

And Maynard, I feel like you're ESL or dyslexic or something. What, about ANY of those comments, is so horrifying?

 

[MGKrebs]

That's OK vrai. Like I said, I can't convince you, you'll have to decide for yourself.

 

[vraiblonde]

"If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you!"

Weener. Why not just tell me what you find so offensive about Buchanan's comments?

 

[MGKrebs]

If we accept that he's not going to come out and say 'I think everyone other than those of northern European descent are inferior", then we have to use a little judgement and try to determine why he would say certain things.



"The War Between the States was about independence, about self-determination, about the right of a people to break free of a government to which they could no longer give allegiance,"

A government, and a nation, that had decided that slavery was immoral. Buchanan apparently feels that defending slavery was OK.

On race relations in the late 1940s and early 1950s: "There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The 'negroes' of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours." (Right from the Beginning, Buchanan's 1988 autobiography, p. 131)

It sounds like he's saying that Blacks brought all this "trouble" on themselves by making an issue of their status. Or maybe they just have caused us whites a bunch of unnecessary trouble. If only they had just kept the status quo, everything would be all right.

White House advisor Buchanan urged President Nixon in an April 1969 memo not to visit "the Widow King" on the first anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination, warning that a visit would "outrage many, many people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue and perhaps worse.... Others consider him the Devil incarnate. Dr. King is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history." (New York Daily News, 10/1/90)

He could have chosen to say that, although some thought MLK was divisive or whatever, it would be the right thing and good for the country to go see her. Instead, he chooses to inflame the divisiveness and support those whose motivations are suspect at best.

In a memo to President Nixon, Buchanan suggested that "integration of blacks and whites.... is less likely to result in accommodation than it is in perpetual friction, as the incapable are placed consciously by government side by side with the capable." (Washington Post, 1/5/92)

Calling blacks "incapable" sorta speaks for itself. Unless he was referring to the whites as incapable. I could be mistaken.

Trying to justify apartheid in South Africa, he denounced the notion that "white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this." (syndicated column, 2/7/90) He referred admiringly to the apartheid regime as the "Boer Republic": "Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin her with sanctions?" (syndicated column, 9/17/89)

I don't think I could express it any more clearly than he has. Under what circumstances should the majority population be denied the right to vote so that a minority can continue to rule?

"There is nothing wrong with us sitting down and arguing that issue that we are a European country." (Newsday, 11/15/92)

It's just patently false. It's only true if you freeze the demographics of our country in the 1700's. This country is FULL of immigrants from all over the world.

In a September 1993 speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan described multiculturalism as "an across-the-board assault on our Anglo-American heritage."

As if letting those who are non-european celebrate their heritage somehow diminishes the anglo ability to maintain theirs.

Writing of "group fantasies of martyrdom," Buchanan challenged the historical record that thousands of Jews were gassed to death by diesel exhaust at Treblinka: "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody." (New Republic, 10/22/90)

It's history. it's documented. It's fact. What in the world would inspire him to question it?

In his September 1993 speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan declared: "Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free." (ADL Report, 1994)

Pretty divisive. All at once he is saying that if you are not Christian, you don't belong, and at the same time, asserting that our Christian based culture is "superior", so we don't even need to consider any other "cultures".

"Rail as they will about 'discrimination,' women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism." (syndicated column, 11/22/83)

It's late and it's depressing to read all of this again. No comment.

 

[vraiblonde]

Man, Maynard, you're really stretching with your interpretations. Why is it so wrong for a white Christian man to be proud of being all three? If he were a black man promoting Afro-centrism, you wouldn't bat an eyelash. If it were a Wiccan saying their religion was best, it wouldn't disturb you. If it were a woman saying that men are inferior in some way, I doubt you'd notice. Why the animosity toward this guy?

About the MLK comment: my father-in-law said that there were a lot of people who felt that way back then, black AND white. But even if he meant it maliciously, that was in 1962. Why can you forgive Robert Byrd for being a KKK member but not Buchanan for making a racist statement?

Also, you've taken many of those comments out of context or left part of them out, changing their perceived meaning. The apartheid one, for example. I'll find you the whole column and you can see what I mean.

 

[Frank]

You're stretching a lot of these, which seems to suggest a predisposition *against* him. For example -

"A government, and a nation, that had decided that slavery was immoral. Buchanan apparently feels that defending slavery was OK."

Interesting - do you have ANY idea how many blacks I know insist that the war had NOTHING to do with freeing the slaves - that it had NOTHING to do with protecting or ending slavery - but now, a guy is called racist because he says the same thing?

"Calling blacks "incapable" sorta speaks for itself. Unless he was referring to the whites as incapable. I could be mistaken."

He doesn't point to *anyone*, or any race - and the point IS obvious - there are *some* - white OR black - who would fight and oppose it - and you don't know who they are when you toss 'em all in the same mix. You get the bad and the good of both races - why would you think he only meant all of one or the other race? That doesn't even follow logically from his remarks.

"It's just patently false. It's only true if you freeze the demographics of our country in the 1700's. This country is FULL of immigrants from all over the world. "

We *are* - culturally, socially, politically AND demographically. Even the Latinos are Euro. Most of the residents here are traceable to Europe.

"As if letting those who are non-european celebrate their heritage somehow diminishes the anglo ability to maintain theirs. "

Multi-culturalism - as broad as it can be - one, does not "forbid' people to identify with their own culture. But we have a culture as *AMERICANS* - not anglos - that is all our own, and persons who come here who refuse to be American but persist in being their own culture are a threat. I've read many sources saying the same thing. And I've met many immigrants who have point blank stated - I am NOT American; I am Nicaraguan (or name your nationality) and they *forbid* their children from recognizing ANY American heritage or event. This is NOT a threat to American culture?

Again, without reading more of the source - almost *certainly* a remark lifted utterly out of context.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by Frank
Interesting - do you have ANY idea how many blacks I know insist that the war had NOTHING to do with freeing the slaves - that it had NOTHING to do with protecting or ending slavery - but now, a guy is called racist because he says the same thing?

There are two views as to the cause of the Civil War:

The first, of course, is the abolition of slavery.

The second is the usurpation of the rights of Southern plantation owners, by the Northern politicians, to steer their own economic course.

Yes, slavery was key to the success of the Southern plantations economically. But the principal issue was the South's reluctance to bend to the political whims of the Union politicians. Abolitionism stemmed from this power struggle as a clear weapon the North could use to strike at the heart of the soon-to-be Confederacy.

Don't fool yourself into believing the North was altruistic with it's view of "freeing the slaves".

 

[MGKrebs]

Ya' see. We're already down to parsing phrases, and context, and intent. It's impossible to argue this this way.

If Pat were to say things like some white supremicists say, you would dismiss him. But since he, being a professional speechwriter, can use the language cleverly, he gets away with it.

Let me try it this way. In the pantheon of public figure comments on race, Pat is on the edge of bigotry. Almost every chance he gets, he expresses an opinion similar to those held by white supremacists. Defending apartheid, questioning the Holocaust, defending the South in the Civil War, superiority of northern European heritage and Christianity.

Perhaps some of those issues can be argued from a couple of different perspectives, but looking at 40 years of comments, it is easy to draw the conclusion that he is a bigot.

I don't think I've seen any attempt to qualify those statements in a way that would reassure those who would question his motivation. Maybe I've missed them. "So Pat, do you deny that thousands of Jews were executed at Treblinka?" Mr, Buchanan, will you say without qualification that slavery was wrong?" "Will you say that despite the problems with racial integration, it is the right thing to do?"

Some of you will disagree with this (because we've already had this part of the conversation) but I think that it is appropriate for those in a majority, whether it is Christians, or whites or whatever, to recognize their status as a majority, and as a result presumably in a position of greater power, to be just a little understanding and at least attempt to make it clear that their advocacy of their own heritage or culture is not meant to detract from minority cultures. Celebrating one's own culture is fine, but why is it so hard to find a way to do it than doesn't alienate others? I don't see where Pat has done this.

 

[vraiblonde]

I was reading something the other day and the author said something like, "When Black Americans celebrate a different nationality (such as Africanism), it sets the stage for white separatism."

Celebrating one's own culture is fine, but why is it so hard to find a way to do it than doesn't alienate others?

Celebrating your "own" culture, by it's very definition, alienates others. You are separating yourself from a group to show solidarity to another group. I, personally, don't think this is a bad thing. But I think that across the board, with no regard to skin color, religion or ethnicity. We are conditioned in this country to accept blacks and Hispanics' separatism, but to recoil when whites do it. We accept and even applaud "African" Americanism, but you let some white guy tout the virtues of "Anglo" Americanism and watch heads roll.

Make up your mind!

We're already down to parsing phrases, and context, and intent. It's impossible to argue this this way.

I think it's the ONLY way to argue. If you take a quote out of context, it can take on a very different meaning. Which is why I have such a problem with the media - they do that crap all the time. Take the George Bush Grocery Scanner incident, for example.

 

[vraiblonde]

Besides, AGAIN, Pat Buchanan isn't an elected official or even an appointed one. He's just an ordinary citizen. So I'm not going to hold him to the same standard that I would, say, a Senate Majority Leader.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Celebrating ... alienates others. I...think this is a bad thing.

We are conditioned in this country to accept blacks and Hispanics...

I think ... you take a ... crap all the time.

Sorry, Vrai, but I think I took your last statement out of context.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Steve
Sorry, Vrai, but I think I took your last statement out of context.

No, you understood it just fine!

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Steve
There are two views as to the cause of the Civil War:

The first, of course, is the abolition of slavery.

The second is the usurpation of the rights of Southern plantation owners, by the Northern politicians, to steer their own economic course.

Yes, slavery was key to the success of the Southern plantations economically. But the principal issue was the South's reluctance to bend to the political whims of the Union politicians. Abolitionism stemmed from this power struggle as a clear weapon the North could use to strike at the heart of the soon-to-be Confederacy.

Don't fool yourself into believing the North was altruistic with it's view of "freeing the slaves".

You're right that when the war started, the North's goal was to preserve the Union, not to destory slavery. But slavery was indeed the root cause of the Civil War.

For decades before the war, the Senate was divided along regional lines instead of party lines. Each side feared that if the other gained a Senate majority by admitting a new free state or slave state to the Union, it could determine the legality of slavery throughout the nation. The two sides maintained an uneasy balance of power for decades, until the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision in the 1850s.

You know why the South seceded? Because the Republicans campaigned on an anti-slavery platform, and Southerners feared that Lincoln would follow through on that platform.

 

[Steve]

But slavery was indeed the root cause of the Civil War.

After I posted my last, I had an additional thought. If the Union really did seek to abolish slavery, why did it take nearly 100 additional years before blacks won social equality? I'm sure the answer can be traced through history. But if the Union was so gungho to get these people freed from slavery, why didn't the Union go all the way make them equal citizens? Look how long it took following the civil war before women won some element of social equality with the vote.

All I'm saying is that to point to the Civil War and say that it was fought solely for the purpose of ending slavery is myopic.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Steve
After I posted my last, I had an additional thought. If the Union really did seek to abolish slavery, why did it take nearly 100 additional years before blacks won social equality? I'm sure the answer can be traced through history. But if the Union was so gungho to get these people freed from slavery, why didn't the Union go all the way make them equal citizens? Look how long it took following the civil war before women won some element of social equality with the vote.

All I'm saying is that to point to the Civil War and say that it was fought solely for the purpose of ending slavery is myopic.

That's a good question, Steve.

As I wrote, the war originally began because the North wanted to keep the Union together. Lincoln said that, and not abolishing slavery, was his top priority as commander in chief. It wasn't until the Emancipation Proclamation that abolishing slavery became the North's moral objective. I believe most Americans knew that the war would settle the issue of slavery once and for all.

You're right that after the war, the North could have done a lot more for blacks' social equality. Instead, it turned its head as Jim Crow became a way of life. I don't have all the answers. I suggest you read the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James Loewen. It does seem like the Southern aristocracy lost the war but won the peace. Not only did these people establish Jim Crow, they convinced generations of Americans that slavery had little to do with the "Lost Cause."