Here’s Sullivan’s pathetic defense of Pat Buchanan:
There is so much I disagree with Pat Buchanan on – from World War II to marriage equality to immigration to my love of a multi-racial and multi-cultural society – that I could write a book in it. But let me say something in his defense: however repellent some of his views, he is intellectually honest. Yes, publicly bigoted, sometimes outrageous, a flame-thrower, a reactionary who flirted at times with what only can be called neo-fascism.
With friends like that… But, wait, this is Sullivan. You just know it can’t end there, can it? Of course not, let’s zero in on the real villains:
The idea that he was not the target of much subterranean leftist outrage and pressure to fire him, as my colleague Howie Kurtz reports, seems highly unlikely to me. Yes, as Howie rightly reports, Buchanan’s latest inflammatory book was the casus belli. But Phil Griffin’s views of the book and an underground campaign to fire him from the professional left are not mutually exclusive explanations. I believe Pat on this. The pressure on MSNBC management to get rid of this fly in their propagandistic ointment must have been intense – and came in part from two of the more pernicious liberal interest groups in DC, the Gay Human Rights Campaign and the ADL.
Maybe, just maybe, Andrew, people protested him not because they are just mean-spirited haters out for a scalp or to “get rid of this fly in their propagandistic ointment” (WTF DOES THAT MEAN?), but they protested him because he was, and I quote, “publicly bigoted” and a “reactionary who flirted at times with what only can be called neo-fascism.” I understand you liked Uncle Pat, and I admit to thinking he produced good tv (in the sense that you never knew what kind of shit he would say), but if you think the world needs these kinds of ideas discussed and promoted, why hell- use your platform. You have a webcam. I bet David Duke and Randall Terry and all sorts of Stormfront and Klan leaders would love the exposure. There are a ton of intellectually honest bigots out there. Hell, you could have Santorum on.
Bring ’em on, and enlighten us with your bizarre festival of ideas. You could even have Charles Murray on to provide them some statistics.
You know who else was intellectually honest in his repellent views, Andrew?
I will never understand this cult of balance shit. Without him, MSNBC is now a propaganda outlet? Because they don’t let a neo-fascist on television?
The monthly Sullivan facepalm strikes again. Just when you think you’re in, he pushes you back out.
In Germany. Pat would be in jail, so he should be happy he’s no there.
The ADL is not liberal. Pernicious, yes, liberal no.
Neo-fascism. No big whoop. But the real haters were those nasty leftists who pointed out his neo-fascism!
This Apologiafestersexengeheistumumacher* is vintage Sullivan:
When you read further, you find that Uncle Pat sent Andrew a nice note when Andrew came out with his HIV status.
It’s always all about Andrew’s feefees, all the time, always.
*German for “apology made on behalf of NeoNazi assholes because they once wrote me a nice note about my HIV status.”
They should have fired him a long time ago because he doesn’t have a fucking thing to say worth hearing. The only thing he ever provided was controversy, so if he’s hoist on his own flaccid petard he can’t very well complain about that.
Maybe MSNBC just decided to pare down their line-up of stupid people. Andrea Mitchell, you’re next.
You know who else was intellectually honest?
Edit: Damn, I was pretty sure I was going to be late on the draw on that one. Good work Egg Berry.
Or, Andrew, “Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, but at least it was an ethos.”
You’re out of your element, Andy.
Yes, how will our fragile republic survive without someone on the airwaves offering a counterbalancing opinion on WORLD WAR FUCKING TWO.
Sully really buried the lede in that post, which should have been titled “Pat Buchanan was nice to me once.”
I’m wondering: at what point are someone’s opinions vile enough that you deserve to be removed from a TV show?
Like, Pat Buchanan apparently deserved his spot on TV whilst being openly white supremacist and fascist. How about David Duke? Does he deserve a spot on TV? How about Tom Green, the polygamist? How far right do you have to move before your views become too abhorrent to broadcast?
Maybe Tim McVeigh’s problem was that he didn’t have a TV show…
COMMENT DELETED BECAUSE THE AUTHOR IS AN IDIOT.
Or, Andrew, “Say what you will about the tenets of National S**ialism, but at least it was an ethos.”
You’re out of your element, Andy.
Sullivan defending a man who is essentially a white supremacist?
Gee what a shock.
Sullivan might be on meds because a sane person could not and would not write that.
Full. Stop. Sully. FSS. What award shall he award himself for that unholy mess?
I got to admit, Buchanan perplexed me for a long time, as an avid watcher of the The McLaughlin Group all through the Bush admin. Guess I had BDS so bad, I tuned out most everything but his hammering of the Iraq war that soothed my personal demons some on that front. When I recovered from the BDS and heard he thought Hitler was just misunderstood, and that we should have fought with the Germans against the commie Soviets, or whatever that bullshit was he wrote in his book, that was about it for me, and I could hear all the other racist crap. He couldn’t woo me no more with the anti Iraq war talk. Ugly person, glad he’s gone from MSNBC, should have happened a long time ago. He belongs in the Fox News swamp. Where I suspect he’ll land.
This entire article should be nominated for a Moore Award.
At least I don’t have to twitch any more when Rachel Maddow deals with “Uncle” Pat. (When was the last time she had him on her show, versus dealing with him on a panel?)
Once again, Sullivan fails to not disappoint.
Villago Delenda Est
As I pointed out in an earlier thread where this very topic came up, you can say what you will about the tenets of National Socia1ism, but at least it is an ethos.
On edit: refreshing fizzy beverage, with caffeine, to our new dad, who needs the caffeine.
When do we get to start saying what is obvious?:
Andrew Sullivan is a fucking racist, period.
pernicious, adjective, having a harmful effect, esp. in a gradual or subtle way.
Go fuck yourself, Sullivan.
I do like that it seems to be Smiths day here.
Sure he was a hateful, despicable old bigot. But he was in the family. And you never mess with da’ family.
Let people pick on good ole Patty Buchannan and next dey gonna try an’ off Fat Tony or Sweeky McGee. Andrew’s a good old boy, just stickin’ up for ‘is own.
Youse gotta respect that kinda character.
Nice little Murray sting in the tail there, Cole. And well deserved.
And there was nothing “subterranean” about the opposition to Buchanan. Liberals didn’t want NBC to give a racist a platform — that’s a problem because?
@Villago Delenda Est: You get the silver medal on that one.
@Martin: Is it possible to Godwin a thread about Pat Buchanan?
@General Stuck: Fox news has their quota of white supremacists. They might have an opening for a lover of Bishops against birth control though.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Oh lord. Tweety is going to miss PB’s “cheerful, fun-loving, irascible presence”.
Speaking of Murray, did Sullivan ever grapple with Frum’s takedown of the new book? Happened while he was on vacation, and I’d be interested to see how he deals with one of his conservacrushes utterly dismantling another.
The truly shocking day will be when Andrew Sullivan doesn’t fall all over himself to defend a white supremacist.
Wake me when that happens (which I’m assuming will happen approximately the same moment that Judgement Day begins). Until then, this is just another reminder why I never read Sully.
Not necessarily a disqualification from being a political pundit. If you start applying the standard that people have to have something original and enlightening to say on TV we’ll be watching test patterns all day.
@david mizner: Exactly. Are conservatives saying that there are two sides to this issue? Pro-racism and anti-racism?
If so, they ought to get on the record.
The lede was buried right at the end of Sullivan’s piece:
A nice personal touch by Buchanan forever made him basically-a-good-guy to Sullivan, no matter what repellant shit came out of Pat’s mouth.
Cris (without an H)
People don’t want to give a platform to white supremacists because they’re afraid of the truth!
@RossInDetroit: There’s always the weather channel, or sports, or reading.
@Trentrunner: No need for that shit, man. No need.
When Pat used to hide his bigotry, I kind of liked him. I didn’t agree with everything he said, but he was a quick-thinking, passionate debater with good rhetorical skills. Over the years, he got worse and worse at keeping his bigotry hidden and lost his quick-thinking and his rhetorical skills eroded and, eventually failed, like an old rusty pipe…
Now when I see him, I just think racist crank… He was on the Diane Rehm’s show the other day… I was driving so I couldn’t call in, but I was going to (nicely) get in her face about having someone as bigotted and hateful as Pat come on her show and spout his vile, racist, homophobic rhetoric without having someone there with enough guts to call him on his BS.
Eggcellent question. Maybe it ends up being some kind of Nazi exorcism–“debbil get OUT!”
Villago Delenda Est
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Well, you know how it is. Reinhard Heydrich was quite the cutup at parties in Berlin.
What gall. The opinionated bastard parlayed his big mouth into big bucks for 40 years, and now has the nerve to squeal like a stuck pig. He is one greedy SOB.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Justin: God I remember an old episode of Crossfire (how’s that for a relic), Sullivan in a remote screen red-faced and screaming at Buchanan that the suicide of rate of gay teens was high not because they knew they were sick or sinners, but “because of you”
Pat Buchanan has as much intellectual honesty as Andrew Sullivan.
(Negative numbers were invented for a reason.)
Ed Dane defender of Doughnuts
Sullivan has a hard on for Santorum … it is no wonder he’ll be stumping for Rick should he get the nomination.
Sullivan’s a masochist at heart.
The worst thing about the Sullivan piece is that it is part of the growing right-wing meme of “We have to respect Sociopath X because Sociopath X, unlike Mitt Romney, really believes what s/he’s saying.” It’s unreal. The argument is we have to respect a belief simply because it exists. I mean, no one says of the left, “Well, so and so is a socialist, and we need to respect that because he really believes it.”
A genocidal world view is an “interesting intellectual exercise” to Andrew Sullivan. What an asshole. Apparently, protesting horrifying, people hating, war creating ideas is leftist totalitarianism.
Can we get Turing back and have Sullivan charged with crimes against nature?
You do understand this is a cable news network we’re talking about, right?
Please. Keep him out of the female lady bits, if you don’t mind. I’ve pretty much had ENOUGH of men talking about them, legislating them and denigrating them. ENOUGH. Talk about your own fucking parts but keep your mind and your self out of mine and my kinds’, kay?
There’s an extremely plausible explanation of why some seemingly surprising folk will come to the qualified defense of people like Pat Buchanan who publicly express many views abhorrent to them. On a personal one-to-one level, Buchanan’s probably a very considerate, respectful, interesting guy to hang out with and discuss the issues of the day over a couple of beers, or out by the mailbox if they happen to be your neighbor. On a personal level, he may even be the kind of friend who “has your back”, even though politically you can’t reconcile or excuse his viewpoints. I have a dear friend I’ve known since we were each three years old (we’re both now in our early 60s) who is a very positive, supportive guy, but his politics are extreme tea party. However, it is much easier to ignore that aspect of him since he holds no political office, nor any ambitions to political influence beyond making small-scale donations to his favored kind of politician.
This kind of hail-fellow-well-met may not be the kind of personal relationship you can comfortably maintain yourself with someone whose political views are abhorrent, but I guarantee that’s the explanation behind it: on a personal level, despite his rhetoric, Buchanan and Sullivan had a certain bond of personal friendship and respect, enough for
Sullivan to feel motivated to speak in Buchanan’s partial defense (whether Buchanan really deserves this or not).
This reminds me of a man I once knew who was the friendliest, nicest, do anything for you kind of guy. And he was the worst bigot I ever knew. Turns out he was only that way to other white people.
Maybe Ta-Nehisi Coates will weigh in. I enjoy seeing him rip Sully’s arguments to shreds, even if he does so more politely than I would or could.
Villago Delenda Est
Yes, which was pretty much Jon Stewart’s point when he issued the coup de grâce on Crossfire several years ago.
@cathyx: I hope it wasn’t Mr. Rogers.
@taylormattd: He’s a misogynist too. I think that’s the only reason he’s gay – he hates women too much to even treat them the way Santorum does.
@Egg Berry: I think that a Buchanan piece is automatically Godwinned by definition.
The question should be why MSNBC had to be pressured into doing the right thing?
In Trentrunner’s semi-defense, judging by his choice of insults, he appears to be British, and that term is much more accepted across the pond.
@John Cole: Well, I disagree, and I guess I have to spell out why:
Andrew Sullivan is a thoroughgoing hypocrite whose “opinions” are 100% self-serving all the time.
So whether it’s “I have risky sex but you shouldn’t” or “Pat Buchanan may be a racist but he wrote me a nice note,” there’s no facet of Sullivan’s public political life that isn’t riven with blinding hypocrisy.
I thought that connection would be clear. I’m happy to make sure it is. :)
Not sure what the point of that paragraph was by Sullivan.
I do think that one thing that distinguishes Pat Buchanan from other wingnut talking heads is that he, more than most, retains civility with the other side while spouting his crazy views.
But, so what? This isn’t about whether Buchanan is a nice man in person, or is less rude than the very very low standard set by other right wingers. It’s about his view not being appropriate, or relevant or interesting for any public debate in the U.S.
I’m glad Buchanan can be a nice person in personal relationships. That is good. But so what.
Sullivan’s opening was silly too. Yeah, Buchanan does have some interesting historical knowledge in his head. He can do that logic thing better, and a little longer than Newt (but only a few seconds of that will beat Newt).
So, Buchanan knows more, and can reason a little better than other wingnuts, but after a minute, or 700 words, he still ends up in pure hateful crazy.
And at the end of Sullivan’s post, what was he nattering about range of debate? What range of debate on US corporate media?
If you kept Buchanan on TV and wanted a range of debate, who or what would you put on to balance him on the left? I cannot imagine, can anyone?
Sorry Pat, but it’s long past time.
Odie Hugh Manatee
Sully, I assume that you meant that you could write a book on it rather than in it. Now that we have that cleaned up, I strongly believe that you should write this book. The best way to do this would be to move to some far off country, maybe Antarctica, and devote yourself wholly to what would surely be a best seller. I recommend taking at least 15-20 years to write this epic tome, anything less would be selling Pat short.
Heck, make it 25-30 years of writing in isolation and I’m sure you’ll have a book that will outdo the bible in popularity.
As usual Sullivan relies on name calling and does not provide evicdence or reasoned argument. His case consists of the words “propagandistic” and “pernicious”.
Also when was the ADL “leftist” (implied not stated) ? In fact when was it last liberal ? I’m sure it was in the 70s, but it seems to me that it has been reliably right of center for years, probably decades. More reliably than Sullivan in any case.
I add that I am a leftist and don’t like to be associated with Foxman in anyone’s mind.
Shorter Andrew Fucking Sullivan: “Yes, Pat Buchanan is a bigot, but he’s a SERIOUS bigot who has thought long and hard about his bigoted views.”
@kc: And he won’t yell at you, and sends nice notes. Sullivan misses the point.
@Egg Berry: It’s sort of pre-Godwinned, innit?
Well, Tweety came out and had a really big sad over Pukecanan’s firing today, too. Don’t know what he serves at his cocktail parties but it’s gotta be aaaaaawesome.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
If Sullivan can forgive Buchanan his pathological bigotry because of a nice note, I guess that means I can overlook the fact that Sully occasionally trips over a nut and always remember him as the pudding-brained jackass who called me a fifth columnist because I was smarter than he was about all things Bush.
ETA: A “decadent” fifth columnist. I forgot my own decadence.
The Kenosha Kid
I saw Andrew Sullivan appear on the Propagandistic Ointment channel just the other day. I guess face time is face time, after all.
@Sad Iron: It’s unreal. The argument is we have to respect a belief simply because it exists.
I particularly like the synergy between this argument and the one that goes “requiring religious groups to obey the law is a violation of the First Amendment.” The other members of my cult are just as excited – performing the Dark Invocation of Hastur just isn’t as fulfilling when you stick to what’s “legal.” Iä! Yog-Sothoth! Iä!
I remember an appearance African-American op/ed columnist Clarence Page made on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour just after Pat Buchanan’s speech at the 1992 GOP convention. After echoing Molly Ivins’s quip that Buchanan’s speech sounded better in the original German, he stated that Pat was always polite and civil to him off-air when they appeared together on the McLaughlin Group (or, as my kids used to call it, “The Yelling Show”, but that he guessed that you never really get to know a fella until he runs for president.
In an existence bounded by inevitable mortality, there is no reason to waste so much as a femtosecond reading Andrew Sullivan.
But let me say something in his defense: however repellent some of his views, he is intellectually honest. Yes, publicly bigoted, sometimes outrageous, a flame-thrower, a reactionary who flirted at times with what only can be called neo-fascism.
You know who else was publicly bigoted, sometimes outrageous, a flame-thrower, a reactionary who flirted at times with what only can be called neo-fascism….?
What’s this bizarre obsession some have with intellectual honesty as a defense to repellent views? Why is a repellent view any better if the person who holds it is honest and sincere in his bigotry?
I’m sure Osama bin Laden was intellectually honest. I never got a sense from him that he didn’t mean what he said. But is that any kind of defense?
I was 18 when Buchanan spoke at the GOP Convention and it was one of the things that inspired me to vote for Clinton. Buchanan’s language was down right scary, a veritable list of all the things he hates, and how immoral everyone but he and the people in the room are. Molly Ivins was on the nose when she spoke about his speech.
Plus, he and his sister look like they should have starred in a x-files episode about psychotic, cloned siblings.
In a sane society, Buchanan would’ve been writing crank letters to the editor of the weekly paper in Jal, New Mexico for the last 25 years.
Can I have a Moore Award now, Sullivan, you racist douchecanoe?
God, Andrew, really knows how to inflame john public with his defensive sheiss. Just see Buchanan for who and what he is and says, andrew. A bigoted, bordering on white supremacist intellectual ole time bigot….and try to think of all those hues and of-colour folk he has offended through the years with his words. And no, I don’t give a royal flush how intellectual and well written he is, as most of them are in the crazy-assed racist party that is the GOP. Of course, let’s wait for good old Andy-dandy to pushback as he gets hammered left,right and centre.
“Well, you know my name is Andy
and I like to do drawerings.
I like to draw all day long
so come and do drawerings with me.
Come and do drawerings with me!”
(cut to Andy sitting in his tub, wearing a helicopter beanie)
Were you lookin’ at me bum, you cheeky bum-looker? Or were you considering the completely plausible, totally unbigoted, and intellectually courageous idea that blacks are genetically inferior to whites?
I don’t understand. I read several left-leaning blogs and the general disgust with Buchanan has not been hidden at all. What’s Sullivan talking about?
This is the crux of it when it comes to the media. Watching cable tv shows is nothing more than voyeurism. We’re simply provided a window into a 24 hour coffee klatch, with insipid opinions and projections, and insulting analysis of what we “real Americans” are thinking about. Those who participate in the activity are the real narcissists in the political game. Sullivan enjoyed sparring with Buchanan and assumes that we should have enjoyed it as well. I have no doubt that PB has some redeeming qualities, his sense of humor is certainly one of them – he really can laugh at himself and that’s a rare thing for a right winger. However, that does not mean he should be on tv spouting racist dogma and outdated Nixonian political analysis. It wasn’t long past his time to go. He never should have had a platform to begin with.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@RossInDetroit: “… we’ll be watching test patterns all day.”
Good. We would be better informed.
John, there’s only one thing to be done: Balloon Juice has to start awarding a monthly Sullivan Award, for lick-splittle toadying in defense of repellent bigotry.
Judas Escargot, Your Postmodern Neighbor
…unless that woman’s name happens to be “Maggie Thatcher”.
Villago Delenda Est
To flirt with Godwin, Reinhard Heydrich was a very cultured, charming man.
Who ran the Gestapo.
I’ve said it elsewhere here and I’ll say it again. If I could fire one house conservative on MSNBC, I’d dump Scarborough in a minute over Buchanan. Buchanan is transparent and, per Sully’s point, at least more intellectually honest than Morning Joe and his round table of useless idiots. Buchanan doesn’t hide reactionary assholism under a smiley face or trim his views so that he can retain a veneer of “moderation” or “centrism.” He’s the real deal. Raw. He’s also not a petty partisan. And he has recollections of more hard-right political history in his little finger than all of Scarborough’s recycling of being in Congress when Newt was running the show. I find Buchanan’s views abhorrent, but he doesn’t disgust me as much as most of the movement conservatives because he’s capable of breaking with them – in either direction – on issues he holds dear. And he’s not just a little partisan shit who will say anything, whether he believes it or not. The insane shit Buchanan says is coming from his core beliefs. Buchanan is an actual dinosaur. Not a plastic blow-up toy like that other “house conservative” on MSNBC.
“I was 18 when Buchanan spoke at the GOP Convention and it was one of the things that inspired me to vote for Clinton.”
Roll ’em, Pat!
I am amazed that Andrew Sullivan doesn’t grasp the obvious: a bigoted reactionary neofascist who is sincere in his bigotry etc. and articulate when he expresses such views is still all those unsavory things. Does Sullivan value sincerity and articulate expression so highly that, if someone he likes has these qualities, that someone is free to espouse repugnant beliefs? If so, Sullivan is either amoral or fundamentally stupid.
@Villago Delenda Est:
I actually knew several people who had been quite close to Heydrich in the Thirties and yes, that’s what they said about him — cultured, charming, good company. He was even best man at one of their weddings. A lovely man, all in all — if, you know, you were able to make yourself ignore all that other stuff.
I wonder if Sullivan feels the same way about Chris Christie.
@The Kenosha Kid: @The Kenosha Kid:
That’s a keeper.
How far right do you have to be to think the ADL and the HRC are part of the “professional left”?
@Rafer Janders: This.
I know what you mean. He also displays some self-deprecation about his loonier ideas when called on them. I’m not so sure he believes everything he says because he does seem to recognize his ideology, is a parody, not a Shakespearean tragedy.
There’s ample evidence to prove both. But as noted above, Pat was nice to him and that trumps everything.
Not to be flip, but I wonder if it’s just that Sullivan is as much of a racist crank as Buchanan is. When last we heard from Sullivan, he was arguing with Ta-Nehisi Coates about how the fucking Bell Curve really isn’t racist pseudo-science, and that Coates was “suppressing important research”, or some horseshit. I honestly don’t understand what the attraction with Sullivan is. He’s consistently wrong about everything, and an arrogant asshole to boot.
Can we tag these posts as “Andrew Sullivan plays with his belly lint”
I came across Sullivan’s tripe via Daily Kos. After muttering “Of course you would defend open white supremacist Pat Buchanan”, I read his piece thinking the entire time, “Just get to the part where you had a pleasant interaction with Pat a long time ago, because of course you did.”
I still find it amusing that it took as long as it did for Sullivan to be moved into the “Blogs We Monitor And Mock As Needed” category.
@david mizner: He’s reacted to the Buchanan exit, but no mention of Sullivan (although some commenters pile on.)
One more note on why Sullivan has a point and it’s pretty shallow to assume MSNBC has cleaned it’s house of noxious fumes. Buchanan would sit next to Rachel Maddow and go toe-to-toe with her on issues. She seemed to enjoy sparring with the crazy old coot. Joe Scarborough doesn’t have the balls to appear on the same panel as Maddow, having walked out in a hissy fit during, I believe, some comments of hers during the mid-term election coverage. Scarborough’s daily 3 hours of drek is taken seriously, apparently, in the Beltway. Buchanan’s role was a specimen in the museum of conservative history. Scarborough has elevated himself – hollow little creep that he is – to some sort of influential commentator, aided and abetted by some of the dullest minds ever to grace even the political and punditry establishment. Not to mention the sock-puppet that sits next to him. That terrible show is one of my pet peeves, so no I’m not going to stroke MSNBC for cutting an obvious crank, whose retrograde views have been well known for decades, from their roster. I think even Michael Steele is a bigger piece of shit than Buchanan. He’s just a whore. Buchanan is the crazy uncle who shows up at Thanksgiving and gives everyone the opportunity to roll their eyes. Relatively harmless in context, precisely because he’s such an obsolete fixture.
We should also add to that “Wake me up when Andrew Sullivan has the courage to enable comments on his posts.”
To look at Andrew Sullivan’s expressed attitudes and not see them as racist is to look at the expression 2+2 and not see it as four.
I’m sure we can all agree that Buchanan’s views that World War II started because that warmonger Chamberlain wouldn’t agree to Hitler’s totally reasonable request for Danzig, which was all that he wanted there were no then secret now well documented treaties about how the Germans would not be stopping with just Danzig, is intellectually honest. In comparison to the rest of what he says.
OK, but they didn’t fire Buchanan because he’s a conservative, they fired him because his overt racism was embarrassing the network. I’m surprised it took this long. While Scarborough would embarrass me, he obviously doesn’t embarrass them, and it’s not as though MSNBC was just looking to fire a con for the hell of it.
“my colleague Howie Kurtz.” Hahahaha Andrew. Nothing to crow about there.
fasteddie9318 – Please don’t try to slow me down when I’m ranting. This saves me a couple of bucks a day on the blood pressure meds.
This isn’t far off the mark. He is, or could be described most accurately as a Paleoconservative
pseudonymous in nc
@Bruce S: she definitely relished the challenge. And I think it’s important to acknowledge that he had a constituency of sorts — ffs, there are probably a few bishops of similar background to Buchanan whose private poltics aren’t dissimilar from his.
Does being a cablenews contributor lend mainstream legitimacy to those views? I suppose that it can in a structural way. But yes, if it’s a choice between old, ineffectual bigots and media whores, I’ll take the bigots.
Robert Waldman – I hear you man!
I hear you man!
I hear you man!
Anyone who calls Howard Kurtz a “colleague” should be ignored — completely.
Oh, wait, I already do ignore Sullivan. Every time I see something here about him, it just reminds me why I’ve ignored him for years.
@Ken: Indeed! (And nice chant at the end. Well done.)
@Bruce S: This. I prefer the ‘in your face’ style of crazy as well – it’s the ones who hide behind a facade of ‘normal’ that seem to be the most dangerous.
We know Andy broke your heart once; but it’s been years now. Why can’t you move on? Sure, he keeps dangling that one little ray of hope, every so often hinting that he may change back; that one day he will become a reasonble, honest, kind man, and love you again. But he never, ever will. For why? Because he is a twisted, evil, power-worshiping, wanna-be upperclass turd. He misuses his expensive education to bamboozle hundreds of hopeless lovers like you with his charm and the old-school parsiflage.
In Re Charm, have you never read “Brideshead Revisited” Go on, it is not too, too, late to understand the pernicious evil that is charm. You and I, we come from the wrong continent and wrong social class to have inborne immunity.
Meanwhile, this sick manipulator has you on a partial reinforcement schedule. Or equally, you are an addict. You can chose to live out your days in the misery of unrequited love….but maybe a better choice for you would be to move on. If you chose to be free, you must never read Andy again. I’m sorry, but that’s the way it is.
@Flowers: No fatties, just daddies.
Honestly, the reason the ADL objects to Buchanan is because he’s not in lockstep with the neo-cons on the Middle East. The ADL lumps J-Street into the “anti-Israel” category with Buchanan, which renders their critique of Pat disingenuous at best. They have zero credibility on this issue.
This was funny. As if the “subterranean left” cared one iota about who the Joe Scarborough network has on to spout nonsense.
@PIGL: Sully isn’t even that charming. Or I have the immunity. Either way, he never appealed to me in either his reasonable or unreasonable modes.
Sullivan is just spouting the party line: No matter what a conservative may have done, LIBERALS ARE WORSE. Sure, Pat Buchanan spouted racist and homophobic eliminationist garbage on national TV, but hey, some liberals complained. Don’t you people recognize the true evil here?
Like everyone else in the Village, it’s all a joke to Sullivan. I’m sure when he appeared on programs with Pat Buchanan, the entire Village watched and talked about what great TV it was. Only we stupid liberals ever paid attention to what was actually said.
@Omnes Omnibus: yes, my little piece was over-written….I thought a Brideshead reference would be oh-so pseudo-erudite, thus, you now, fitting with the theme.
Actually, the Villagers have an equal disdain for the Sullyman.
Give it a FUCKING rest!
The Tragically Flip
Bruce S. says pretty much what I’m thinking. Not apologizing for the racism, sexism and general mores taken from Deuteronomy, but Buchanan is actually the only conservative pundit I can name who was capable of criticizing Republicans for behaving stupidly when they actually were behaving stupidly, or could realistically admit when polls or election results were bad for them without the usual 95 kinds of sophistry, misdirection and straw men. He didn’t spin everything continuously like every other goddam Republican/conservative on teevee.
I think it was because he had established himself in the conservative firmament, is likely already quite independently wealthy, and had absolutely no need to please any think tanks, wealthy donors or other powerbrokers to keep his place in the wingnut welfare system. He was never going to rise again in mainstream Republican politics and as far as I know he doesn’t have kids, so no need to kiss anyone’s asses on their behalf either.
Now it’s all grifters, all the way down. I suppose that’s better for liberalism, viewers will see none but soulless careerists from Ron Christie to SE Cupp to the National Review crew representing conservativism but just the simple existence of someone on the right who could occasionally admit the sky was blue when the GOP playbook says it is red was somewhat refreshing.
Okay – you’re making me want to vomit. Perhaps it’s better we stop the name-checking of whores and cretins.
I think we are missing something very important: bigotry is the polar opposite of “intellectual honesty.” Bigots are not intellectually honest. They may be sincere, but not intellectually honest.
Christ on melba toast. They got rid of Pat for two reasons: He was getting ridiculous. Hadn’t had an original idea for two or three decades. Rigid and boring and stuck in a xenophobic rut that was just embarrassing to the network.
And B, or two, also too, they have a crew of righty analysts that are much better. The surprisingly alert Michael Steele. The amazingly smart and intellectually together Steve Schmidt, and the always overbearing Joe Scarborough. Just to name three. And then they have the totally clueless Mika and the strange chuckress Andrea. (A chuckress is a lady chucker).
Pat will not be missed. After all these years, we’ve already heard everything he had to say, more than once.
Stop doing this. You know he’s a stopped clock. He’s unreliable. He’s ungrounded.
And this wasn’t noticed earlier? Come on now, they know this.
@IgnoranceArbitrage: They’re consistent. Consistency is what the chattering class worships.
Thymezone – Steve Schmidt is good. Excellent, actually. Michael Steele is an idiot. Joe Scarborough is a narcissistic blow-hard who makes Buchanan seem like a towering intellectual. The three hours allotted to Scarborough’s assembly of the terminally mediocre every morning is a bigger embarrassment to MSNBC than anything Buchanan has ever done. On top of that, Scarborough doesn’t even have the balls to sit on the same set with Rachel Maddow. He’s a coward – needs to be surrounded by people he can run over or he can’t cut it.
In all of this kerfluffle, it has to be minded that MSNBC is a platform that not many get to access. Pat B had that platform and he was considered repellant. That platform is a place that is coveted by anyone who wants free speech. If I turn on my 17 regional show I am force-fed the most noxious bilge that can be offered. So be it. But that does not make me without an ear. I choose not to hear Pat B. Thanks MSNBC
And yes, Andrew Sullivan can do the can-can painted white face. Really. I’ve been wrong a number of times but I didn’t compare myself like Andrew does. I just took it on the knees. There is a great paragraph in a Jo Nesbo novel, Nemesis, that looks at those who take great favor of themselves. On page 21 in fact. Ivaarson. Did anyone tell you what a dick he is?
Another Halocene Human
@cmorenc: This. I have a friend like this, too, although it’s his wife who is the tea-partier, while he thinks he’s a moderate republican (he is addicted to the Bill-O Tits and Pinhead Hour).
I suspect Mike Barnacle is very good at fellating all the right people in media because despite failing very publicly and often HE IS STILL ON TV THE USELESS LYING SHIT. Fuck him, anyway.
Another Halocene Human
@Midnight Marauder: Sadly too late in the thread for you to see this, but I was monitoring and mocking him back in the late 1990’s! Sullivan has always been a giant dickwad!
I was shocked when he was still around in the mid-2000’s… gawd… and I vomited in my mouth when I saw his smarmy Newsweek cover last year. The same asshole who was posting pics of his testosterone-enhanced
consumptivePOZ chest on BAREBACKING websites. Jeff Gannon would be embarrassed to be in the same room with this guy.
Fuck him and send him back to Limey for fuck’s sake. On a rail, if necessary.
Another Halocene Human
@Bruce S: Hey, don’t hate on my homeboy, Michael Steele. He brought the comedy, in buckets.
He and those Dems voting against SSM in MD are a reminder than in MD politics, the Democrats are Republicans and the Republicans are Democrats. Well, the Republicans are Republicans but they’re the country-club type who have no investment in culture wars and want to think they’re down with the cool kids. Interning with Steele, despite the humiliating photos on the RNC website, sounds like it was AWESOME. Certainly would beat spending a summer as slave labor for Nader’s MassPIRG. I’ve heard horror stories. (And even that doesn’t have an eyelash on getting sucked into the Larouche cult.)
I’m just sayin’… maybe that’s why I have zero interest in returning to MD. (One reason of many.)