And Pat had to explain the term “journalism” to Chris.

Pat is old school. Bless his heart for being innocent.

Pat Buchanan is one of my favorite. Even though I disagree with a lot of what he says, he’s quite a charming fellow. I look at him sorta like my eternal TV grandfather.

Pat seems to be a genuinely nice guy, usually content to agree to disagree.

Bachmann’s a House member, not a senator. She can’t handle her current job; don’t give her a promotion.

Val, m, and RRK are singing the praises of Pat Buchanan? Pitchfork Pat? The original antisemitic, racist, hate mongering Republican? Wow! Memories are short. I guess 20 years from now you’ll all be talking about how Glenn Beck is such a nice guy.

I shouldn’t think so, and I disagree with Pat about 80% of the time. But, he was a huge, H-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-G-E factor in Clinton’s first victory. My fondness for him has more to do with ability to be self-deprecating and also respectful when arguing. That has become increasingly rare. I should also note that Pat is intelligent and articulate. Comparing him to Glen(n) Beck is rather like comparing Ferragamo Parigis with Home Depot drywall mud.

Uhh. Michelle Bachmann is NOT a Senator from MN. Despite having elected Jesse Ventura Governor once, the folks there are not that nuts, she just has the most conservative district, which she represents as a US Congressperson.

IOW: Michele Bachmann was so far afield, Pat Buchanan couldn’t imagine what she was saying. In fact she was so far offbase, he just had to laugh.

What? No update on Senator Coburn now that he has made a statement about Rachel Maddow? Interesting (snicker).

I liked what Ron Reagan said about Palin and Bachmann. He said they were both a couple of McNuggets short of a Happy Meal.

finch,
Don’t forget, I used to be a conservative, and Pat has been an important conservative voice for as long as I can remember. Of course, it goes without saying that though I respect him, I usually do not agree with him. Not now, anyway. He is what I call, a “culture warrior”, and he is stuck in the past, in that regard.

Magister:

Bachmann was not far afield. For some time now, the military has lumped cyber attacks (massive cyber attacks, mind you, not stealing somebody’s credit card number from their home computer) in with other large scale attacks such as nuclear, chemical, or biological attacks for strategic purposes. Here’s an article on the subject from 10 years ago:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/cabana.html

And it makes sense that they do that. As computer networks become more pervasive, a massive cyber attack could cost far more lives than a chemical or biological weapons attack.

No one is advocating the automatic use of nukes to retaliate from a cyber attack. In fact, no one is saying such retaliation would ever be appropriate. The issue is one of classical game theory. Even if you’re never going to do x, you don’t want your enemy to know it. If your enemy thinks you might do x (even if you never will), it has a deterrent effect. The same principle applies in poker (it’s called bluffing); litigation (when you’re try to settle a case); and foreign affairs (e.g., our policy of “strategic ambiguity” on Taiwan).

Of course, the media is trying to turn this into it’s latest stupid anti-republican meme. “That stupid, radical, extremist Michelle Bachmann wants to use nukes every time someone hacks your computer. She’s SOOO stupid!” It’s the worst form of demagoguery.

For the record, I’ve never studied the issue enough to know who’s actually right here. But Bachmann is simply arguing for the status quo while Obama is trying to change it. Obama may be right (I hope he is), but Bachmann’s position is reasonable and needs to be taken seriously.

I also like Buchanan in some ways: he’s smart, well-spoken, and charismatic. My kind of guy. But Pat really has flirted with some extreme stuff in his career. In particular, he may not be an actual holocaust denier, but he certainly has given them aid and comfort.

I find this ironic because there are so many conservatives who get wrongly maligned as being extremist (for example, every single member of the Tea Party). That criticism is, more often than not, wholly unjustified. But with Buchanan, it is legitimate. I’m genuinely surprised people are willing to give him a pass. I guess it just goes to show that if you show up on MSNBC every day and smile a lot, liberals will be okay with you. But God forbid you ever appear on Fox!

@AnonymousFinch: Buchanan doesn’t get a clear pass because there’s video somewhere of Maddow striking back, but I think he does get something because he’s old, he’s known and for the most part,he’s played within the system.

I probably disagree with Pat on 90%, but I pretty much know who he is, his role in the process and the political sphere and while I appreciate his perspective, I also know that he’s pretty harmless.

As for the “cyberattack”, I’ve got to take the kids to their lessons, so I haven’t read your link, but I find it kind of hard to believe that a potential first retaliatory strike with nukes was anybody’s idea to use against a nation that is otherwise “compliant”. (Scare quotes from Bachmann)

finch,
Buchanan is over the top quite often, and of course I knash my teeth. But he is an older man and he gets some deference. Some of the things he says, need to be said, because they reflect how people out there feel. By saying those things, and then facing the opposition view, and through the dialogue that follows, I believe that is helpful in the overall dynamic of change.

The media vortex sucked up adidas sportswear hockey, LeBron James, Tiger Woods, Donovan sportswear shorts McNabb, baseball stars tied to a doctor being investigated for HGH nike sportswearr and Brittney Griner this week.dfethgrtwer

Buchanan is a racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic no-nothing ass who thinks we still are in the Nixon generation, aka his heyday. Heck, this week, he tried to claim that both sides were right during the Civil War, and rudely castigated Karen Finney.

He has no place in the discussion of 21st century politics, and barely 20th century.

I have an odd relationship with Buchanan. I think that he can be a bit racist, but I don’t think he is sexist at all. And generally I forgive his well-cloaked subtle racism because he is jovial, moderate and very smart. I would much rather listen to his analysis than some 30-year-old GOP zombie who has no insider view on the history of the right, as Pat clearly does.

So I disagree with txvoodoo because Pat DOES have a place in the discussion of politics today. We need his informed voice more than ever, because he actually IS informed and not the standard robot-like idiot like Hannity and most of the right tend to be these days.

I’ll take Buchannan’s flaws (and I am not even sure he is an outright racist) any day over Breitbart, Beck or Hannity.