We should all be so lucky if only we did get some of those ideas enacted, especially "special protections for homosexuals." Except we're already denied many rights (i.e. adopting children in Florida), so all we want is to be just brought up to speed with everybody else.

Abuse of congressional power, skewing the SCOTUS, attempting to create a permanent Democratic majority...

Where do liberals get these crazy ideas?

I've gotten to the point where I have to Tivo Rachel Maddow's show so I can speed through her all too frequent interviews with this nut case. And when people say that MSNBC is too liberal, I have to ask, "then why is Buchanan on every show, every day?"

I take the risk of noting, that we really should be concerned of possible blow-back from overly lax health care plans. Illegal immigrants probably do take jobs from citizens, and it's a rational concern to worry about free influx across the border. Many liberal thinkers make the mistake, if they can imagine a sleazy motive for a concern then the actual concern can't be worthwhile. That is a logical fallacy.

Pat Buchanan has to wear a bag of cloves around his neck to cover up the Old Man Smell.

Now, now fellow liberals, before we all get too smooschy and laugh at Pat (rightfully) try to remember all of the collusion between Bushit and Pelosi and Ried that brought us to this morass. From Pelosi's handing George and Co. a "Get Out of Jail Free Card" by not impeaching the Main Torturer and his side kick Bushit, laying down (with Obama) on FISA, including the nauseating freebee of retroactive immunity for spying illegally, not terminating a preemptive and unholy war, and turning the blind eye toward the un-bundling of the stock market, extraordinary renditions, GitMo, and the middle class smashing recession caused by economic policies that were either agreed-to or not filibustered by the Dems and their weak-kneed leadership. That "my friends" is the reality in the nut shell.

Obama and this loosely knit bunch of closet neocons will be locking heads soon, and I don't mean just the fouled mood, looking for revenge GOP. These eight years of pain could not have happened w/o the likes of Jay Rockefeller and a host of Dems licking Bushit's ass.

So, as much as I dislike Patty Bu"cannon", I have no love for the Pelosi/Ried rhetoric either. They stunk-up the place nearly as much as darth and Bushit. Nauseating

And yet - when he talks about foreign policy, he usually makes more sense than a lot of the chattering class.

Why does Rachel Maddow make him a regular guest? I love the "It's Pat" routine, but that is where the charm ends. Surely there is a compelling conservative voice that Pat's.

Why does Rachel Maddow make him a regular guest? I love the "It's Pat" routine, but that is where the charm ends. Surely there is a compelling conservative voice that Pat's.

Man, what if gay illegal immigrants with AIDS start pouring in across the wide open border. Buchanan will have a stroke. that would be a shame.

Honestly, this tirade is just the GOP platform dumbed down so people can understand it. Take every statement, read the exact opposite, and you know what McCain is shooting for.

-- right wing supreme court
-- hermetically seal the borders
-- arrest every latino in US
-- health insurance for no one except govt.

Sounds like a utopia to me.

Really? Promise?

I'm pro opening the borders in the name of free movement of people to accompany free movement of goods (CAFTA all he way baby, but let's be fair about it). I hadn't even thought about how it would effect the western states electorally, but good.

Replacing RBG and JPS is just holding serve. We need Scalia to decide he's too old for this shit and retire.

When they say "special protections for gay people" that's just republican code for equality. So, yup, sign us up for that too.

It's a shame Buchanan is such a nut job and his predictions never come true, but here's hoping that even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while and he's right about these changes.

GO OBAMA!

"The homosexual marriages that state judges have forced California, Massachusetts and Connecticut to recognize, an Obama Congress or Obama court will require all 50 states to recognize."

Aren't all 50 states already forced to recognize those marriages according to Article IV, Section 1 of the constitution:

"Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. "

I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds to me like if a marriage is legal and licensed in one state that it must be given full faith and credit in another. A marriage is a public act, and it's on record via the license.

To paraphrase Kevin Drum's post today, Pat Buchanan isn't the future of the Republican party. He's the future of the Democratic party.

Keep talking, Pat. We need to elect more Democrats.

That's a hoot.

Which one of those things is supposed to make me vote against Obama?

They all sound pretty good to me.

Pat makes it sound like those are bad things!

That sounds outstanding. Here I thought I was voting for the lesser of two evils as usual, and Pat tells me I'm going to get the unvarnished left-liberalism of my dreams. Can Pat give us a guarantee on that prediction?

(Oh, except, Pat, not so many people are going to be "breaching our borders" the next couple of years, while there are no jobs because your party royally fucked up the economy. But hey, even the best prophets blow one now and then.)

Archie Bunker still lives...

'nuf said.

So, as much as I dislike Patty Bu"cannon", I have no love for the Pelosi/Ried rhetoric either. They stunk-up the place nearly as much as darth and Bushit. Nauseating Posted by: stevio

I agree. Pelosi and Reid are horrible congressional leaders. You'd think the Dems were still in the minority for all they've accomplished.

If Obama is smart (and I believe he is) he'll avoid the mistake Clinton made in 93 and avoid doing anything with social issues during his first 100 days (no gays in military, no gun control). He should focus his entire attention on two things:

1 - The economy, getting his tax proposals in place and setting the stage for his spending priorities (energy, healthcare etc)

2 - Getting us the hell out of Iraq.

Those issues are enormously popular in the country (polling well over 50% and generally over 60%). Congress, with a Democratic majority, will go along with him on those without too much infighting.

With a couple of big wins on popular fronts he can then move on to more contentious issues from a position of strength. Clinton made a mistake hitting hot button social issues too early, weakening him for fights later on and forcing him to compromise on some of the economic issues and play defense.

There is going to be a lot of pressure from progressives to push hard on social issues early and on many of them I agree with their goals. But pushing early feeds into the Republican fear machine and give us 1994 all over again. Focus on the economy first.

Compelling?

Are we supposed to support Obama more?

There will be pizza and pop for everyone!
(Soy, Goat and non-Cheese for those who require it and water and fruit juice options too.)

Vote Obama!

Gay, Mexican abortion doctors are coming... to take away your guns!

I don't know about harmless clown, but one thing I will NOT FORGET from this election is the incredible number of impressive

Republicans who have come out in one way or another to denounce McCain or Palin's tactics, style, and/or policy (many of whom say they will vote Obama)

those who have chosen to back off but not take a position

and then finally, worse yet--
those who keep insisting and arguing forcefully that McCain/Palin is the much better choice.

Slightly OT, on the crazy right winger theme, it looks like the battle between Zeitgeist and the Carpetbagger is going another round: Rep. King is trying to out-wingnut Michele Bachman again. King thinks Obama's election will lead to a "totalitarian dictatorship." Read it for yourself - http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/28/king-obama-dictator/ . Sorry Steve, advantage Zeitgeist.

"I remember a time when Buchanan's rants were infuriating. Now, he just seems like some harmless clown, with harangues that read more like parodies than anything else."

Yeah, I know what you mean. It's odd, how our perception of the world has shifted. Obama's campaign is transforming our image of how America works. Buchanan sounds quaint. The Rovian fear and smear machine isn't working. The Republican base sounds like nut-cases. The William Ayers/REv. Wright/terrorist/radical Muslim/socialist/marxist threats are laughable.

btw, won't the meltdown of the US economy result in fewer illegal aliens?

Universal healthcare?
The end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
An end to judicial conservativism?
A sensible and respectful immigration policy?

I agree. Pelosi and Reid are horrible congressional leaders. You'd think the Dems were still in the minority for all they've accomplished.

Yeah, Pelosi and especially Reid need to go.

I personally believe Obama should endorse Clinton for Majority leader in the Senate. Yes, she's a little to right for my tastes (I'd actually prefer Dodd or Feingold) but such a move would heal whatever bad blood lingers from the primary.

I think she would be very effective getting Obama's economic and healthcare proposals (which she largely agrees with) passed. And unlike Reid, she'd actually tell Mitch McConnell to go sit where sun don't shine. As opposed to Reid who seems to go out of his way to give McConell wins.

Danp on October 28, 2008 at 2:31 PM:

...when people say that MSNBC is too liberal, I have to ask, "then why is Buchanan on every show, every day?"

He's the foil, intended to make everyone else look even more reasonable and sane.

if a marriage is legal and licensed in one state that it must be given full faith and credit in another

According to the Defense of Marriage Act, no:

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

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

I have been an Obama supporter for some time, but now, I must say this argument has compelled me to vote for Obama.

this country is sad. I was just looking at the price of Ford stock on google's ticker for shits and giggles. They have comments for every stock and this is what was posted;

"Invest in FORD now! Joe the plummer is not wrong! F3.50 Super Heavy
Duty!"

Hopefully it was a joke. No word on what car "Tito the Bildur" drives

Steve Benen wrote: "Now, he just seems like some harmless clown, with harangues that read more like parodies than anything else."

You might as well be describing John McCain's inane, incoherent rants against "socialism" and "spreading the wealth".

And so what if all those things happen ? What real difference would it make ?

I`m not, by any means, for total open borders "come one come all" but these fascist whackjobs are totally off the deep end and out of touch with reality.

Yawn...

"...It`s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine..." - REM

Fuck that old coot
All you have to do is watch him make the rounds on MSNBC from Morning Joe to Rachel at night. He gets paid to spout his right wing foolishness. You can tell most of the time he dosen't even take himself seriously. Just shows up for work- - Ya know its dirty work , but someone's got to do it

I guess I must really be a liberal because I don't have a problem with any of those issues. In fact, it all seems pretty reasonable to me.

Just a note to Diogenes at 2:40:

I don't want to get into lengthy detail, since it's really OT, but the Supreme Court has never decided one way or the other that marriages must be recognized across states under the FF&C clause. Most legal scholars, however, think that it is unlikely they would do so, as the Supremes have pretty much backed away from putting much teeth into that clause. In other words, it's not completely foreclosed, but it's unlikely that there's any constitutional requirement to recognize marriages (of any variety).

Once again, the Republican base, in this case as represented by Buchanan, clearly does not understand that their defining issues are unpopular with 2/3rds of America.

Sure, gay marriage doesn't poll all that well, but in terms of intensity 2/3rds of America either supports it strongly or doesn't really care much one way or the other.

Abortion? The majority viewpoint is that it's icky, and not a suitable topic for polite company, but not something people want illegal either.

Immigration? Less and less a concern for most people.

And on the topics that are people's hot buttons, the Republicans are consistently on the wrong side of the polls:

* Tax cuts and welfare for the rich.
* Balancing the budget
* Clean energy & clean environment
* Affordable health care, without all the gotchas like "pre-existing conditions"
* Affordable college education
* Reign in the corrupt megacorporations
* Get the *%^& out of Iraq and stop wasting all that money on military adventurism (actually, Buchanan would agree with that point, but he's a minority in his own party).

That's why you are losing, Pat. And until you adapt your party's message to address the real problems that your party created, you will keep on losing.

Mustang Bobby beat me to it.

But, here's why we won't get any of that.

1. Obama is on record as opposing gay marriage.

2. Paulson staying on, Larry Summers coming back or NY Fed head Tim Geleitner (another GS alum) being named are the rumored top three Obama choices for Treasury.

3. Cass Sunstein ain't that liberal; if he's a possible SCOTUS choice, you get an idea of Obama's thinking there. (Oh, and contrary to Buchanan's lie, Ginsberg isn't that liberal herself; Stevens is iconoclastic, but probably more liberal overall than she is.)

That said, this is just part of why I voted Green, and would do so even in Florida, Ohio, etc.

4. Per Krugman et al, Obama's current plans will NOT get us to universal healthcare.

As we laugh at Pat Buchanan, I think it's important to point out that Steve's conclusion...that this is all just so 1990's, is very, very wrong.

It was just a few short years ago, 2004 to be exact, that those issues would've been an instant "Rally around the flag" call to the conservative base.

It just so happens that the financial crisis is the ONLY thing that has made this seem minor. Not 9/11, not the Iraq War, nothing.

So don't be surprised to see this come back again in 4 years. This is very much a viewpoint to fear because it's a viewpoint that many Americans do share.

Pat doesn't get the idea that maybe it's time to start talking to folks like they were adults, not dolts.

The drone of the right wingnuts is still very dangerous.

Pat's presence on the airwaves would make sense if he was a sportscaster, many whom spout rather inane drivel at times.

No amount of cheerleading is going to sway voters, for they know, deep down, that the election is no game.

Don't discourage him! Pat Buchanan's rant at the 1992 convention was instrumental in kicking Bush 41 out of the White House and getting Clinton elected.

Capital has no borders and boundries but people do. The internet must scare the shit out of these fucksticks.

Poor Pat von Buchanan---he was born 75 years too late to get in on the "Look---Juden! Run Avay!!!" mentality of his fellow jackbooted, vermin prairie dogs. Keep on yipping away, prairie dog---we need more vermin-slaying Democrats inside the Beltway.

Just remember one thing Pat B was balls deep in the Nixon crew.

I thought Buchanan was still peddling the "Obama just can't close the deal" line. Or "can't make the sale" or however he phrases it.

He's been saying that since Obama couldn't beat Hillary Clinton. The youngster just can't seal the deal, can he?

Sarah Palin IS in reality Pat Buchanan in drag. Think about it, have we EVER seen them in the same place and at the same time?

can we arrange a civics lesson for all those who blame congressional democrats for not doing more with their "majorities" especially those who wanted george w. impeached?

Steve W — read Pat's newest book, claiming the UK shouldn't have gotten involved in WWII, and related idiocies. He DOES "go there," but subtly and indirectly.

Oh, and I meant "Geithner," not "Geleitner," above.

This all said, once, Buchanan did admit that he in particular and most wingers in general actually didn't believe most this crap, that they were just "working the refs."

Problem is, "Joe the Plumber" (and Mayor Whazzup) DO blieve this crap.

I have been an Obama supporter for some time, but now, I must say this argument has compelled me to vote for Obama.

I'm with Tbone on this. That list looks pretty darn good to me. Having said that, I think Obama will win and if we're lucky we'll get something along the lines of items 2, 3 and 4 on that list. If we're lucky; I'm not optimistic.

Uhhh Pat?

Those things you list aren't bugs, they are features of the incoming administration & thank god for that!

Has anybody else read the "Letter from 2012"? To me, Buchanan's arguments seem a LOT like they were taken directly from there, but watered down slightly for public comsumption.

I agree with those who are hoping all of these things really WILL happen. I am not sure whether to be optimistic or pessimistic about the chances. No, Congress doesn't have a great track record so far, but Democratic majorities are poised to grow substantailly, and if any would-be President has the leadership and the willpower to enact such change, Obama does. I mean, if not Obama, then who?

Among the top priorities of the new Obama administration needs to be the cleaning out of the Justice Department and drafting legislation to make sure that all citizens get to vote and have that vote count.

I agree with others who posted here that the culture warriors are not going away and if we move too fast on the social issues Pat B. listed, Obama will be a one-term President and won't get to accomplish even a tenth of all the good reforms that he has campaigned on.

Steve's conclusion...that this is all just so 1990's, is very, very wrong. ... It just so happens that the financial crisis is the ONLY thing that has made this seem minor. ... So don't be surprised to see this come back again in 4 years.

Make that two years. And, if Pat Buchanan and Sarah Palin hook up, watch out. There are tens of millions of folks who will be on board.

None of this shit is going away, folks.

Ol' Pat seems a little preoccupied with immigration and gays, doesn't he?

Pat is the wisest man in America (outside of being grabbed by the Pope at an impressionable age).

As lame-brained economists are discredited one by one (Greenspan, Bernanke the latest to fall), the common sense wisdom of Buchanan on Globaloney and the abandonment of manufacturing (which is the high tech sector of the economy, not point-and-click) is coming to the fore as correct. Nobel for Buchanan!

Democracy is a matter of culture. Massive chamberpot immigration will alter our way of life. Chamberpot immigrants conform because they are a minority, but they do no assimilate.

Pat rants "This will mean that Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona will soon move out of reach for GOP presidential candidates, as has California."

this IS so 1996...what does he mean "will soon move?" last time i looked NV, CO & NM were going towards obama....

and it was folks like pat that drove the hispanic vote away......

What are Pelosi and Reid supposed to do? Unilaterally revoke the filibuster and Bush's veto power?

To Pat Buchanan: Here's hoping ALL your little dreams come true!

Personally I won't be satisfied until every member of the Supreme Court is a gay illegal immigrant, all of whom openly served in the military and then used the G.I. bill to send themselves through Law school with minors in either hairdressing, flower arrangement, or auto mechanics (for the ladies!)

Pugs are on the way out, folks. I'll see you next Tuesday when we're all dancing in the streets. :D