Pat Buchanan: The Lord of Lies "Ghettoizes" Barack and Demonizes Hillary

[McCamy Taylor]

Pat Buchanan is the Lord of Lies. Like Belial, from Milton’s Paradise Lost

He seem’d for dignity composed and high exploit: but all was false and hollow; though his Tongue dropt Manna, and could make the worse appear the better reason, to perplex and dash maturest Counsels:for his thoughts were low

Buchanan buries his lies in layers of truth. On MSNBC, you will not see a more open, honest frank commentator. Only Buchanan dares to criticize the mainstream media when it goes too far. He compliments the opposition on its winning campaign strategies. He criticizes conservative Republicans for their mistakes. He offers advice to friends and foes like some wise old Taoist master, too sage to become a part of the Ten Thousand Things. He presents himself as the voice of reason which can never lie---and then, with a twinkle in his eye, he slips in the most dangerous lie of all.

Yesterday afternoon, on Tucker, Pat Buchanan performed this trick. During a discussion of the Democratic primary, he announced that the Clintons had “ghettoized” Barack Obama. This is no ordinary corporate media big lie. This is a double whammy Big Lie . In a few words, Pat Buchanan, the Lord of Lies told the world Obama is a scary black man and Hillary is a mega bitch (and so’s her husband) in order to Divide and Conquer the Democratic Party, setting us up for another Chicago 1968, when one of the major Democratic presidential contenders took his delegates and went home in a tiff, sealing the election for Pat Buchanan's Richard Nixon.

Buchanan is some kind of smooth talker. I can understand why Tucker did not contradict the old conservative master, but I would have expected Bill Press to rip him a new one. The fact that he did not confirms something that I have begun to suspect. Like Satan in his newly formed Hell in Paradise Lost Pat Buchanan holds the other minor players at MSNBC in thrall.

Now, before anyone gets non-dualistic on me, I am not calling Pat Buchanan the ultimate evil or the author of all our grief. Milton’s Satan is not that kind of devil. He is a heroic figure more analogous to a vengeful Old Testament deity who believes in an eye for an eye and a paradise lost for a paradise lost. Since Satan can’t go home again, he does not see why anyone else should be allowed to live in peace, and that includes Adam and Eve—you and me.

"What I would like is — I'd like the country I grew up in," Pat Buchanan is reported to have said, "It was a good country.”

That expresses Satan’s motives in Paradise Lost to a T. And neither man, Buchanan nor the Lord of Lies, cares what he has to do to achieve his goal, since all is fair in war, whether it is a war between old and new religions or old and new cultures.

Pat Buchanan is a moderately persuasive speaker but an excellent writer, so I turned to the source for his “Clintons ghettoized Obama” lie, expecting something remarkable, a grand creation that has dazzled people like Bill Press into silence. Instead, I found a pathetic document that even Karl Rove would scorn to call his own.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/pat-buchanan/ghettoizing-barack.html

"I guess this is how the West was won," Hillary Clinton exulted at her victory rally in Las Vegas after the Democratic caucuses.

Exulted? When was the last time I read that word? Somewhere in Narnia, associated with the wicked witch who turned everything to ice? As Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern would say “Rhetoric!”

Well, not exactly, ma'am. Yet how the Clintons, by deftly playing the race and gender cards, turned back the greatest single challenge to a Clinton Restoration will be studied for a long time to come.

“Deftly playing the race and gender cards.” There is the thesis. Let’s see how Buchanan does.

The Lord of Lies claims that the Clintons laid “a baited trap”. They did this by having one campaign staffer talk about Obama’s drug use, by having Clinton question the veracity of Obama’s antiwar stance ( "the fairy tale”), by having Clinton question Obama’s chances in the general elections (“dice roll”), by tricking Obama and Edwards and the media into doing a “pile on” Hillary before New Hampshire, by tricking Obama into being snide to Hillary before New Hampshire, by showing emotion (that Hillary the bitch-witch could not possibly feel) before New Hampshire, by hypnotizing the female population of New Hampshire into rallying to Hillary’s support…..

You know, if Hillary really did have all of these super powers that her enemies attribute to her, I think she would make a great president. She could cast spells on our enemies to force them to disarm. She could make our trade partners give us favorable rates. She could use her lasso of truth to speed up cases at the Department of Justice.

Sorry. I could not resist. Hillary is just this gal. She does not have laser beam eyes or telekinetic powers, and she and Bill do not run the Arkansas mafia.

Stunned and stung, Barack's African-American backers then rushed into the baited trap. One after another, they headed for the TV cameras to charge that the Clintons had fought dirty, forcing voters to focus on the race and gender of the candidates rather than on their records, ideas and issues.

The Clintons made them do that? Is Buchanan sure that it didn’t have anything to do with all the so called media pundits that got on TV or wrote in the papers that Obama lost New Hampshire, because the voters in that state are a bunch of racists?
Obama’s supporters could not have been listening to Tweety, part of that circle at MSNBC that is one degree of separation removed from Pat Buchanan, which has been spreading some really crazy stories? Look at what Tweety said about New Hampshire voters:

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/chris_matthews_racist_paleface_voters_in_new_hampshire_are_what_did_obama_i/

“Methinks Paleface speak with forked tongue.” Chris Matthews

Me wonders if Tweety had been drinking the Pat Buchanan kool aid.

In fact, it turns out that women who had been intending to vote for Hillary all along voted for Hillary. The problem was analysts underestimated how important women’s issues were in New Hampshire.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR2008011802705.html

Rather than waiting for information about what happened, race baiting journalists, like Matthews, announced to the world---and Obama’s supporters---that New Hampshire was inhabited by racists—and implied that the Clintons won by courting those racist voters. Remarks about Obama’s drug use, inexperience and veracity, which could have been leveled at George W. Bush in 2000, were suddenly called racially charged by the press—as if Whites never use cocaine and Whites never lie and Whites never lack experience.

Hmmm. Doesn’t that make the press guilty of racial bias?

When Hillary said sweetly that while Dr. Martin Luther King was the inspirational leader of the civil rights revolution, LBJ was the indispensable leader who had enacted the laws, King, martyr-hero of black America, became an issue.

I'm just going to ignore the sarcastic "sweetly". In this context, it is sexist, and everyone except (apparently) Buchanan can tell that. If Hillary’s main opponent had been Hispanic or Asian or White, her remark would have been interpreted as a perfectly normal attempt to court African-American voters and forgotten. However, Obama and the press--and Pat Buchanan---decided that her remarks were unfair. They decided that she was saying (in effect) "It takes a white man or woman to do anything in this country." And yes, that would be pretty inflammatory. If that was really what she said. However, that does not sound like Hillary Clinton.

Keeping in mind that Barack Obama had been compared to JFK many times and that LBJ was the one who used his years of experience to force through civil rights and other progressive legislation, I wondered if Hillary's remarks had been taken out of context, and if what she had really meant to set up was a comparison between Obama and herself with Barack as the flashier more inspiring JFK and Hillary as the less attractive but, in the end, "get's the job done" LBJ. In other words, was she making one of her usual "I have more experience" arguments. In which case, she wasn't saying anything about Obama being like MLK Jr. For indeed, Hillary and Obama are just politicians, and if either claimed to be the inheritor of King's mantle, they would be fos.

Look at what I found when I viewed the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7QsY-WJ-9Y

Here is TalkingPointsMemo with the full transcript the one that you never hear the corporate media refer to.

"I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."

The duality here is JFK and LBJ. Since Obama has been widely compared to JFK, Hillary did not have to come out and say "Obama is the JFK who dreamed about it, while I am the LBJ with the experience and determination to get it done" but it is clear as day what she was getting at. Seasoned political adviser Pat Buchanan certainly knows what she was saying, and for him to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. And as the Talking Points Memo article shows, the MSM has been editing her words to give a false picture, in order to create racial conflict within the Democratic Party. Why? Because the corporate media wants a Republican FCC that will give them unlimited mergers and acquisitions. And Divide and Conquer is their favorite tool to use against Democrats.

Now, when the Democrats debate, they spend up to 30 minutes being pitted against each other in the equivalent of verbal mud wrestling. CNN devoted an entire show to “race.” MSNBC has been absolutely fixated on the issue. It is as if the networks only just realized that one of the candidates is (oh my god!) Black. Right before the first primary in a southern state. Imagine that.

Barack is no longer a crossover candidate who transcends race.

The Lord of Lies will tell you that Bill and Hillary Clinton are forcing the corporate media to talk about race 24-7. That is because the press loves them. Can’t you hear the love, in the way that Tweety describes Hillary as a she-devil? Can’t you feel the devotion every time they bring up Clinton fatigue? When Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC wrote that Edwards was a loser who would cost Obama the election and doom us all to Hillary, couldn’t you feel the love for the Clintons? Funny, that same argument, that Edwards is a spoiler who is stealing progressive (read “anti-Hillary”) votes from Obama was made yesterday on that program with Buchanan. Could the Lord of Lies have been whispering in O’Donnell’s ear before he wrote for the Huffington Post?

Consider the stark Nevada returns. Though Barack used as the refrain of his concession speech in New Hampshire "Yes, we can!" — the battle cry of Hispanics, "Si, se puede" — though he was endorsed by the Culinary Workers Union, he lost Hispanics by nearly two to one.

So? Staunch Democrats are favoring Hillary. Latinos favor the Democratic Party. Maybe Buchanan thinks that minority voters should stick together? Or, maybe he is pointing out another place where the Republicans can drive a wedge.

Convenient omission here. Obama’s praise of Ronald Reagan came right before the Nevada caucuses. That had to have hurt him with Democratic voters. Unfortunately for Obama, he may have felt forced to make that crazy remark, because the Obama is a Black Muslim big lie officially debuted in an online business journal.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=285292746454291

His defensive reiterations about his Christianity are going to hurt him in the primary, too, since many Democrats are suspicious of attempts to interject religion into politics. It is a good thing that Pat Buchanan has Obama’s back and would never, ever do anything to further the rumors that he is in any way associated with the Nation of Islam...

Oh my! Look what I found in the most recent issue of the American Conservative Pat Buchanan’s very own political magazine. It is an article about how easy it will be to take down Barack Obama in the general election by painting him as a Black Muslim.

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_28/article.html

But while the quest for black identity is interesting on a human level, it is not necessarily the fodder of a mainstream presidential campaign. One of Obama’s major stepping stones toward blackness was his membership in Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, a sprawling Afrocentric enterprise on Chicago’s South Side. Obama first became involved with Wright as a poverty organizer and later joined the church, with its “black value system,” “black freedom,” black this and black that. Trinity United is an atavism of the 1960s, with all the ties anyone would care to find to Louis Farrakhan and Muammar Quadaffi.

Snip

Perhaps the Republicans have so internalized political correctness that it would be unthinkable for them to chip away at Obama’s character. But political parties, by their nature, want to win. John McCain has already opined, “Obama wouldn’t know the difference between an RPG and a bong,” foreshadowing a campaign that emphasizes personality more than issues, terrain hardly favorable to Obama.

Recall how I wrote that the mainstream media is a big fat liar a few journals ago? Pat Buchanan has been crafting lies for the Republican Party for decades. He is an expert at lies about race. A couple of years ago, he was on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and he said that the Republicans could keep control of Congress. All they had to do is remind voters that Rangel and Conyers would chair committees if Democrats took control.



Pat Buchanan wants the GOP to resurrect the Southern Strategy. He wants the GOP to court southern white voters with “issues of school vouchers, traditional values, economic freedom.” These are buzzwords for segregation, racism and callous disregard for the welfare of other human beings.

http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=621

The Lord of Lies is careful to keep race out of the dialog when he talks about the New and Improved Southern Strategy in public, but here is a sampling of some of the things he has written and said in the past when he was associated with Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/buchanan.html

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)

This is the “Paradise” which Buchanan lost.

"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)

This is the “Hell” in which he finds “witches” like Hillary intolerable.

Just as Satan’s Hell is a prison of his own creation, so Pat Buchanan torments himself, longing for a fantasy world of his youth that never really existed. If he wants to spend his life regretting, that is his business. However, he is a very devious liar, and when he uses his talent “Ghettoizing Barack” and "Demonizing Hillary" he does all of us a world of harm.

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Give the devil his due

And the metaphor fits "Pee Jay" well.

Buchanan is well worth listening to, even if you disagree with him 110%. He's one of those bellwethers of the opposition who we should be taking notes from.

--p!

[McCamy Taylor]

3. YOu have to be careful listening to him. He is really sneaky. I worry

that he has more potential to lead people astray than the obvious propaganda machines like Rove and Wolfowitz who are (let's face it) not too bright.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. He's more effective as an oppo "consultant" for the Left

Pat tells it as HE sees it, and he has a lot of insight into the Conservative movement. So does Joe Scarborough; MSNBC lucked out getting then AND Keith Olbermann.

Buchanan does not have very much clout among Neo-Cons; he hates them, and they return the favor by marginalizing him. His potential is limited. But for politics wonks, he's a goldmine. A Democrat could do half of his/her oppo research just by reading American Conservative (PJB's magazine).

--p!

[Dogmudgeon]

6. And I forgot to say ...

... GREAT post!

:headbang:

--p!

[no name no slogan]

2. At Uchannan needs to go back to beating his Nicaraguan gardener

...and daydreaming of Teve Torbes' Victor Mature-like scent

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/95/95qnightline.phtml

[Rock_Garden]

4. Buchanan's failed presidential aspirations figure into his bitter mix.

I enjoyed every word of your post. Terrific analysis of Pat Buchanan's turgid inner mechanisms.

[DigitalFuntown]

7. unbelievable

wow i cannot believe people actually think this way:

http://digitalfuntown.squarespace.com/dft-blog/2008/1/24/bush-clinton-pizza-rap.html#comments

[pattmarty]

8. Defend Pat Buchanan? Somebody has to do it.

I knew this day would come. Pat Buchanan is a intelligent guy with more of a Libertarian bent than a neoconservative one. He is what I call a true believer in that he honestly believes what he writes and talks about on TV. Let me state that most "conservative" pundits/reporters I believe to be whores in that they don't believe most of the neocon crap, especially all the shit about "family values", in short they do it for the "money". I've read a couple of his books and listen to him whenever I see him on the tube because he honestly tells you (at least nowadays, not always so in the past years) what he believes and it is an intelligent view of what the "other side" is thinking. I also will state that in no fucking way do I agree with MOST of his views and I also will say my views (as I describe them to others) are just to the right of Karl Marx. I guess what I'm trying to say is there are actually a "few" (very few) honest people on the right. I'll give you a "fer instance"; Ron Paul. Yeah, good ole Ron Paul, the conservative that Liberals love to love. Now I am not endorsing Mr Paul, but a lot of "liberals" are looking at him as "not to bad for a conservative" and that's because he is also a "true believer", he really believes everything he talks about and makes the most sense by far on those stupid R debates. I'll close with this; you have to keep an open mind on all things and if I am going to listen to the "other side" I would rather listen to Buchanan than ass holes like O'Reilly or Hannity.