tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24005214.post6536952899498818934..comments2023-10-19T12:25:15.143+01:00Comments on The Osterley Times: Pat Buchanan reveals himself as a Hitler Apologist.Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14466059072530968330noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24005214.post-60308358989669308562009-09-05T06:44:13.141+01:002009-09-05T06:44:13.141+01:00The point that Lyndsey Graham made to Sotomayer wa...The point that <a href="http://the-osterley-times.blogspot.com/2009/07/lyndsey-graham-defends-oppressed.html" rel="nofollow">Lyndsey Graham made to Sotomayer </a>was that words have consequences and that "If I had said anything like that [...] they would have had my head."<br /><br />I am well aware, as I am sure you know, that Buchanan does not hold political office and that he is not a judge. But he is a political commentator and he is given access to the nation's airwaves. There is a responsibility that goes with that position. <a href="http://mediacrit.wetpaint.com/page/The+Cancellation+of+Bill+Maher%27s+%22Politically+Incorrect%22" rel="nofollow">Just ask Bill Mayer.</a><br /><br />Graham's notion was that white men are judged more harshly than Latinas. He was, as I said at the time, portraying the Caucasian male as the underdog.<br /><br />I think that's nonsense. I think people on the far right of the political spectrum (male or female) - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1SrC0ErdH4" rel="nofollow">Ann Coulter</a>, and yes, the recent comments from Pat Buchanan - can say absolutely anything - even defend Hitler - and suffer no consequences at all.<br /><br />Bill Mayer and Sotomayer, they will nail to the wall. Ann Coulter and Buchanan are regarded as simply "colourful" and "opinionated".Kelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14466059072530968330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24005214.post-45096375887338048672009-09-04T22:58:52.874+01:002009-09-04T22:58:52.874+01:00Pat isn't holding a powerful government office...Pat isn't holding a powerful government office, he isn't a judge, he is a political commentator for the Paleoconservative perspective. It is both his job and his right to have outspoken opinions. I wouldn't support him for the Supreme Court either, and for essentially the same reasons; he wouldn't be able to project the appearance of being racially neutral.Steel Phoenixhttp://www.theallegator.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24005214.post-33603096212278532932009-09-04T06:54:39.685+01:002009-09-04T06:54:39.685+01:00Pat often tries to bring people back from the edge...<i>Pat often tries to bring people back from the edge of changing Hitler from a complex historical subject to some deified evil incarnate.</i><br /><br />Pat is not coaxing people back from the edge. Pat has gone way, way over the edge himself.<br /><br /><i>I believe the point he has tried to make in the past is that had our foreign policy towards Germany been different in the years leading to Hitler's rise, he may never have been able to rise to power, which seems both a reasonable thought and something to reflect upon in our dealings with Cuba, North Korea, Iran, etc.</i><br /><br />I think you are being incredibly generous towards him.<br /><br />The point that I thought he was trying to make was that the allies bear some responsibility for the Holocaust.<br /><br /><i>I don't see anything in this latest article that I would consider worth firing him over, but he may have to do some backtracking.</i><br /><br />So Pat can defend Hitler, and blame the allies for the Holocaust, but pay no price; but Sotomayer made one comment about Latinas and was unfit for the Supreme Court? As I said, Lyndsey Graham really has got his answer now.Kelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14466059072530968330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24005214.post-23674508862525330422009-09-04T02:13:48.254+01:002009-09-04T02:13:48.254+01:00Pat's been a little over the line lately (and ...Pat's been a little over the line lately (and not for the first time as you pointed out). I'm hoping he will pull himself together and get back on track.<br /><br />Hitler is just one of those untouchable subjects now. Pat often tries to bring people back from the edge of changing Hitler from a complex historical subject to some deified evil incarnate.<br /><br />I believe the point he has tried to make in the past is that had our foreign policy towards Germany been different in the years leading to Hitler's rise, he may never have been able to rise to power, which seems both a reasonable thought and something to reflect upon in our dealings with Cuba, North Korea, Iran, etc.<br /><br />I find it ironic that his point (oppressive opposition breeds radicalism) may have been in play in the writing of the article you refer to. He has been under a lot of heat lately and I think it has goaded him to speak more strongly than he likely intended. I'll be interested to see how the chips fall on this one. I don't see anything in this latest article that I would consider worth firing him over, but he may have to do some backtracking.<br /><br />It reminds me a bit of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4lJ9vsZjMU" rel="nofollow">this video</a>.<br /><br />I imagine Pat will be on the McGlaughlin Group tomorrow. I hope they challenge him on it.Steel Phoenixhttp://www.theallegator.com/noreply@blogger.com