International Cat Speculators Since 2006


One wonders how Paul Buchanan could possibly ever be taken seriously when he writes drivel such as this.

To be fair and balanced, mention should be made of Left protests against the previous US administration. There were sit-downs, marches, yellow ribbon displays and assorted tongue-lashings from the left-leaning media (such as it is). Yet most Left protest against the W. Bush administration’s illegal war in Iraq, its abuses of privacy under the so-called Patriot Act and its use of torture as an interrogation technique was confined to proper channels of voice and redress, and even when it involved street demonstrations never reached the point of questioning the legitimacy of the political system itself.

Are you freaking kidding? Questioning the legitimacy of the Bush administration was in full flight from the day the Florida vote became official. The criticism of Bush was rabid and irrational. That’s why the call it Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Heck, people are even now connecting Bush with current events like the Balloon Boy hoax.

Buchanan has a list of charges, “crimes of opposition” if you will. Let’s go through them.

From a congressman calling the president a liar during his address to Congress,

He was apologised and was told off by Pelosi, oh the irony. Besides, he was actually right.

to a Fox TV commentator calling Obama a racist with an abiding hatred of white people,

which was stupid and wrong – he even denied it minutes later… so that’s 1.

to a radio talk show host openly wishing that the president fail (and later crowing about Chicago’s failed Olympic bid as a ”defeat” for Obama),

Forgetting the “Bush failed” celebration that the left held ever time a soldier died in Iraq? Besides, since when do people get so upset when partisan shock jocks crow about a presidential failure?

to the steady drumbeat of Fox-led accusations that the Obama administration and its policies are “socialist,”

Got that: left wing, tax dodgers, but not socialist.

to the questioning of his birthplace, heritage and religious orientation,

I think the consensus is now that he was born in Hawaii, but there’s something embarrassing on his original birth certificate. As for his heritage, that’s hotly debated by those that want to cover up the more obvious but embarrassing elements. As for his religious orientation, he attended a “Black Liberation Theology” church, but now seems to want to deny that. Whether “Black Liberation” theology is actually christian is a larger debate.

to the funding and organization of “astroturf” Tea Party demonstrations,

Get that? Going to protests against the government is now “disloyal opposition”. Oh, and no conservative ever turns up at protests unless some rich guy pays for it, right? Actually, even National Radio’s correspondent admitted that the protests were genuine.

to approval of people showing up armed at presidential rallies,

…something that’s unfortunately defended by the US constitution and state law. Oh, and one of the guys who did was black, so it’s not a racial thing.

to attempting to tar him by association with ACORN, Bill Ayers and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright,

That’s like “taring” me with the charge that I write a conservative blog. All of those things are provable. He sat on Ayers’ board and sat in Wright’s pews for years. Obama only rejected Wright once it became politically embracing, and the media was far more interested in Palin’s daughter’s boyfriend’s myspace page than exploring the Ayers connections.

to accusations that he is an “internationalist” who is soft on terrorism and will sell-out US interests to a variety of hostile foreign interests,

Which he does seem to be doing to some extent. Witness nice handshakes with Chavez, and refusal to defend US policy. Put this in the “bigger debate” pile.

to claiming that he promotes the browning of America via tacit acceptance of illegal immigration,

I think that makes 2 legitimate hits so far… though more for the interpretation of intent than anything.

to encouraging military insubordination to the civilian political leadership on matters of war and strategy,

Hm, not sure where that charge comes from.

to the grotesque characterizations of Obama and his family’s racial lineage,

You made a cartoon suggesting that a monkey rather than Pelosi wrote the stimulus bill? Why, that’s racist!

I think a bigger problem is the Democrats hiding from criticism by trying to tar all their critics as racist.

to advising people to stock weapons in anticipation of a (fictitious) federal personal arms ban,

I guess they’ll come in handy when the Democrats fictitious draft comes into place.

to the refusal of the Republican congressional bloc to honestly negotiate health care and financial reform

Buchanan can’t have missed the news that the Democrats have solid majorities in both houses, surely?

Besides, Republicans have plenty of ideas. Quote: But Republicans, especially in the House, have been shunned by committee chairs and Democratic leaders who simply refuse to accept GOP amendments to health care bills, even when those amendments align with the President’s stated goals for health care reform.

—taken in isolation these acts may demonstrate nothing other than the behavior of lunatics. But taken together and linked by common sources of funding, organization, direction and expression, they constitute a degree of political disloyalty seldom seen in modern US politics. Hypocrisy is one thing: calls to sedition are another.

Hypocrisy indeed. Buchanan just marched into the room with a heard of elephants and expects us to ignore them.

Yep, there’s some stuff in the opposition to Obama which is just not right. I’m no fan of Glenn Beck beck for the same reason I’m no fan of The Standard – too much hyperventilating and “reading into” small details. But some of the stuff Beck comes up with does need answering. Obama does have links to some dodgy people, and there has been little if any sunlight on those relationships.

But while Buchanan condemns people like Glenn Beck, he is in that last paragraph endorsing the exact same strategies, and he’s even used them throughout his post.

In fact, I’m beginning to wonder if the real problem is that the Democrats miss being the opposition, because they find it harder to use their usual tactics, and are annoyed at their opponents starting to use some of them.

Does that make them a “disloyal government”?

Comments on: "The other guy is a Disloyal Opposition" (7)

  1. Buchanan is full of nonsense. I immediately pointed out the real problem of suppressing freedom of speech and he blandly waved it away. Being a lefty, I doubt he even sees it as such, as the left have a long history of crushing speech that disagrees with their point of view.

    His basic premise that the right is planning some sort of subversive insurrection is simply laughable. Anti-Obama and anti-Democrat rhetoric does not demonstrate disloyalty to democracy. But Obama attempted suppression of Fox News most certainly does. Buchanan happily overlooks the fact that the White House currently hosts the most partisan president since Nixon. It is Obama’s complete inability to engage the opposition in any meaningful manner than is attracting such denigration.

    The Republicans aren’t being disloyal, merely disgruntled at being consistently disregarded.

  2. Paul G. Buchanan said:

    I am not surprised scrubone has attacked my views, as s/he has done so previously, using the same selective cherry picking of quotes to do so. That MacDr. joined the fray here rather than over at KP (and in a self-congratulating manner at that) indicates a level of cowardice or intellectual insecurity on his part. Plus, his representation of my views in the above comment is simply dishonest.

    The bottom line is that I never said that the disloyalty exhibited by the ranting fools leading the conservative charge in the media would inevitably lead to a coup. What I did say, and repeated in the KP comments, is that their challenge is against the system that allowed Obama into office, and in that measure is disloyal. If either one of you were honest you would have cited the entire scoop article rather than play loose with my words.

    Since Scrubone has already unethically distorted my comments in a past post, I expect no less of him in this one. I did expect better of MacDr. but at least now know what I am dealing with.

  3. Paul:

    Interesting you accuse me of cowardice when I essentially posted the same thing at KP. It was not possible for me to follow up my comments due to time constraints, otherwise I most certainly would.

    It is exactly this sort of convenient attribution of motives that I was talking about. Your willingness to think the worst of people is what has lead you to the absurd conclusions that you came to in your post.

  4. “I am not surprised scrubone has attacked my views, as s/he has done so previously, using the same selective cherry picking of quotes to do so.”

    My comments are open, if you have a point to make you’re more than welcome – unlike some blogs. to my knowledge this is the first time you’ve bothered, yet you attack me for previous posts you never replied to.

    I followed normal blog practice, quoting key sections that I wanted to discuss while linking to the entire article. I believe the points I raised are valid, particularly the first section (which was all I was going to say initially). I’m not going to quote the whole article, if people are interested in reading it, the link is there.

    I should add that suggesting that “the left never questioned the legitimacy of the Bush administration” is so dishonest it still leaves me lost for words.

    Perhaps in hindsight I could have focused more on the whole article, but I was more interested in balancing out some of the underlying “evidence”. Showing that the quotes above are not as cut-and-dried as you seem to think renders the entire article meaningless IMHO.

    Finally, I do cheery pick a lot of quotes. True. There’s an element of mischief in what I do here – as with many blogs. But I’m up for a reasoned discussion if are.

  5. Paul G. Buchanan said:

    Suit yourselves guys. If you want to play loose with the article to make your ideologically blinkered points, that is just fine.

    The Left did come close to the sort of antics the conservative Right are now engaging in. They may have questioned the legitimacy of the 2000 election results (as did many), and the legitmacy of the Iraq war (as did many), but the level of demonisation vented against Obama and his policies is beyond the pale and far dwarfs anything the Left did against Bush 43. But then again, you know all of this and just choose to retreat into your safe ideological zone rather than confront the facts.

    The debate in the comments thread over at KP was lively and would have been a better place for you to air your views. That MacDr. could not do so is a pity, but then again labeling my essay as “rubbish” would have opened you to serious critique on a number of fronts.

    I did not respond to the first post in which I was insulted here last year, but the return to ad hominem characterisation of my work in this one is what prompted me to respond.

    I am all for reasoned debate where the merits of the argument prevail, but this is now the second tie that you have resorted to personal denigration of my work just because you disagree with it. That is simply not on.

  6. “but the level of demonisation vented against Obama and his policies is beyond the pale and far dwarfs anything the Left did against Bush 43.”

    Bollocks. Bush was vilified constantly and furiously by the left. He still is today (but I said that already) – Gore Vidal even suggested the other day he wanted to murder him. Any conservative saying stuff like that about Obama would (and has) have the secret service on them in seconds.

    Bear in mind the “antics” you quote includes activities protected by the US constitution (the right to bear arms).

    What about healthcare? I’ve linked to an interview where even *National Radio’s guy* acknowledges that the protest are grassroots. How’s that for “safe ideological zone”?

    Right there you’ve got two points without any basis whatsoever. You spun bollocks and I pointed that out.

    I don’t read Kiwi Pundit (though I had heard once on National Radio that you post there) and usually make most points here anyway. I had no idea that this had been published anywhere but Scoop.

Comments are closed.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: