Pat Buchanan is making more sense than Harold Ford on GEM$NBC right now...

[FLAprogressive]

Harold Ford is a slimebag, Pat Buchanan is a nut (90% of the time). Buchanan is right this time though.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. dew tell, please. I have rocky & boelwinkle on. More informed & interesting

[Sebass1271]

2. WHAT ARE they discussing? more info please?

[Avalux]

3. It is true that no one is 100% wrong 100% of the time. Even a nut like Buchanan,

I have agreed with him before, especially his anti-Iraq war stance.

What is he saying?

[democrat2thecore]

7. See Post # 6 below. -nt

[Sebass1271]

4. Harold Ford is a piece of you know what.. he can never stand

for anything.. he reminds me of Lieberman..

[tularetom]

5. Details for the cable impaired?

I never turn on the TV until countdown starts. Ford is indeed a slimebag. I will never forget how he visibly cringed on Bill Maher's show when Maher dropped the f bomb.

[democrat2thecore]

6. Buchanan is outraged about the Israeli attacks

He says the lack of letting in humanitarian aid and the slow response to aid civilians is a moral outrage. David Schuster sticks up for Israel. Harold Ford sticks up for Israel. Any surprises there? Pat is right about this. 100%.

On edit: He also said there is more outrage inside Israel than from the United States, which he said is also a moral outrage.

[Avalux]

13. Good for Pat. I agree with him too.

There should be no side-taking by anyone when innocent lives are being lost (on both sides). Israelis are marching in the streets - as is in this country, sometimes government actions do not represent the population.

[DaveinMD]

15. maybe

but Buchanan is a guy who actually wrote a book praising Hitler. He is no standing to make any comments about any moral issue.

[MrsBrady]

8. i know...

i was just thinking the same thing...
I couldn't believe I was agreeing with Pat Buchanan.

[DaveinMD]

9. maybe he is maybe he isn't

but quoting Buchanan on anything relating to Jewish people or Israel is suspect. This is guy who has written admirably about Hitler.

[CTyankee]

11. Yes, let's remember that. Do you want to go with this guy? Ugh. n/t

[Johonny]

10. Pat beats Harold a lot

pretty much any time I've seen MSNBC make them go head to head Pat beats him up. Harold either missed the point of the topic or can't understand Pats arguments. It appears Harold has his narrow talking point and can't move that far from it. He really is terrible on TV.

[laststeamtrain]

12. That's not that rare.

I'll take (not vote for) an honest, hard-ass paleo-con over a weak, slimy neo-liberal any day.

It least with the paleo-con you know what's up.

[DaveinMD]

14. will you take

a nazi sympathizer as Pat Buchanan is?

[laststeamtrain]

16. No, as the editor/publisher of American Conservative magazine...

that publishes articles by Andrew J. Bacevich, Philip Giraldi, etc, et al, yes. I'd have a cup of coffee (or whatever) with Mr. Buchanan. There'd be stuff to talk about.

Your question is incredibly stupid. No, I shouldn't say that...sorry.

Your question is incredibly binary.

Also, I guess I'm really unfamiliar with where & when Pat identified himself as a 'nazi sympathizer'.

Is that something you know about? Or is it a phrase you've heard someone say & you're just repeating it?

Do you mean he would have fought on the Axis side in WWII?

PS: You don't need to respond. I probably won't.

[DaveinMD]

17. I'll respond

he wrote a book that demonstrated sympathy and admiration for Hitler. That's all I need to know. He also stated many times that the US should not have entered the war. He's a bigot plain and simple.

[laststeamtrain]

18. What book? Title? Something?

I find some of the anti-interventionist historians very interesting.

Charles A. Beard. William Appleman Williams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Beard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Appleman_Williams

Here's an interview with Bacevich that refers to both:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/85882/tomdispatch_interview_bacevich_the_arrogance_of_american_power

It's a big, wide world. Lots of different people in it.

I think the only intellectuals on MSNBC are Pat & Rachel Maddow. Surprise: they seem to like one another.

Nothing is 'plain and simple'. You may want it to be, but it's not. That's dumb-dumb politics. That's the problem, not the solution. That's the premise of our ridiculous system of heroes & villains where GWB is a war hero & John Kerry is a coward.

Plain & simple is for suckers.

[DaveinMD]

20. here you go

Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World

[laststeamtrain]

21. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

19. just wondering, would Pat walk Rachel Maddow down the aisle

if she married her significant other?

I love to watch her tease Pat when he is on her show, she reminds me
of a cat with a mouse, and she has a gleeful smile.

[etherealtruth]

22. The really disconcerting thing about Buchanan ...

is that he is able to express insane thoughts under the guise of sanity and gentility. His delivery is effective ... his ideas, at best, insane .... at worst evil.

[elleng]

24. His 'insane' thoughts remain such,

however he expresses them. Its foolish, however, to classify everything he says as 'insane' because a lot of it is and may have been.

Lets NOT BE FOOLS!

[elleng]

23. fwiw,

I think Buchanan is very smart, but occasionally socially disagreeable; Ford, not smart, and politically, not smart either.

[MasonJar]

25. Harold Ford is the epitome of what is wrong with the Democratic Party.