Mydder agrees with White Suprematist Anti Semite Buchannon

Why am I sick of mydd. Let me preface I am a young AA female of Latino heritage. I have given 10 years of my life to politics and the Democratic Party. It saddens me when so called liberals agree with the likes of Patrick J. Buchannan. To me it's like saying AA you can do anything just not be president.  Advocate for your girl or guy but to agree with Buchannan goes against everything the modern DNC stands for.

What sickened me was that a mydder agreed with the racist anti immigrant anti Semite Pat Buchannan about Obama "ghettoizing" the Presidential race. WTF??? Is Hillary Genderizing the race? Is Edwards Son of a millworkerizing the race no... They are different people fighting for the Presidency. Unfortunately it is getting personal. But to agree with Buchannan is much worse than Obama saying Reagan transformed America because Reagan he did. But not in the way we wanted.  

If you agree with Buchannan and you're a Democrat we don't want you in this party. We are a diverse party with a big tent. Yes we fight (like most families do) but in the end we come together... But the lies innuendos racial and gender stereotypes by posters have to stop. We can argue and disagree. We can even joke and diss our own fanaticism of our candidates or mock the the other candidates  and their overzealous supporters. Ok I really love my candidate. But not in that way.   But to agree with a racist disgusting. Don't you see Buchannan is not just going after Obama he is going after the DNC... And a few folks here are foolish enough to fall for it. He is trying to turn us against each other.. Buchannan is a Race Pimp and we should be fighting to get him off of the air...

If you don't believe me about Buchannan see for yourself. Here is what Buchannan has said in the past

"What is happening to us? An immigrant invasion of the United States from the Third World, as America's white majority is no longer even reproducing itself. Since Roe v. Wade, America has aborted 45 million of her children. And Asia, Africa and Latin America have sent 45 million of their children to inherit the estate the aborted American children never saw. God is not mocked.

And white America is in flight."
Source: d=20823

Hate Watch pat-buchanan-again-cites-racist-sources -on-black-crime

The Southern Poverty Law Center rt/article.jsp?aid=718

Pat Buchannan called a White supremacist- Huffington Post /pat-buchanan-finally-call_n_82099.html

Taino Red trick-buchanans-anti-latino-racism.html

I invite you to conduct your own research about him. Anyways I am tired I am weary and I am worn. I lifted that from "Lift every Voice and Sing".

If Patrich J. Buchannan is who you agree with I will say it again get out of my party. But if you don't I am glad you're here. Let's try not take this to seriously.  Let's go have a drink. It's five o'clock somewhere

Tags: Clinton. Edwards, DNC, gender, obama, race (all tags)



Buchanan is nativist populist.

He's basically a traditional isolationist nativist. He's not keen on immigrants and share all the other characteristics of the type. However, he knows a lot about politics and political strategy and often has some shrewd insights. Just because we don't like him or don't agree with him doesn't mean that you can't listen to what he has to say. That's what the 1st Amendment is all about. As the founder of the salvation army said even the devil has some good tunes.    

by ottovbvs 2008-01-22 11:05AM | 0 recs
He is racist... And you agree with him

WTF.. Are you serious???

by TennesseeGurl 2008-01-22 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: He is racist... And you agree with him

Read my lips

"Just because we don't like him or don't agree with him"

I think you are getting a bit over emotional.  

by ottovbvs 2008-01-22 11:16AM | 0 recs
Get over it..

So you agree with this racist. If you do shame on you..

by TennesseeGurl 2008-01-22 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Mydder

I do not like Buchannan- his anti-semitic behavior in the past has been awful- but CNN and the other shows constantly now have him on as a legtimate commentator- I have been uncomfortable but there he is- and he is treated as a pundit- so he can't be totally dismissed as that.

There have been some unfortunate links put up as late- some of it, I think, has been unintentional and without full knowledge of exactly the implications of that.

What I am so sick of- though- and this isn't directed at you particularly, are some of what people writing these dairies fill of just venom for the posters here- you have an agenda against the people HERE- and really, this goes beyond putting up a couple of unfortunate links- you do it time and time again- quoting and what-not- spend your time explaining your position about what is said- not the PEOPLE- this is your way of campaigning against Clinton- you try to malign the people FOR HER- and you people do it in the most disgusting ways- fill diaries of quotes and what-not; I hate that, because sites are supposed to be about the candidates, but you want to make it about the posters, which is not what is about.  Attacks on posters are usually discouraged on sites- but that is all the anti-Clinton seem to do - it's really vile to me.

by reasonwarrior 2008-01-22 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Mydder agrees with White Suprematist Anti Semi

Buchanan is obviously a pig on many levels.

I don't believe that diarist was saying he agrees with Buchanan.  Rather, I believe the diarist had already chosen Clinton over Obama for reasons unrelated to anything Buchanan raised.

However, to put it bluntly, Buchanan does speak for a significant constituency of his fellow pigs.  I, personally, could give a crap if Obama has "ghettoized" the race or if he has been pigeonholed into running as more of a stereotypical "black candidate" than he was trying for.  That has nothing to do with how I cast my vote.  But for many white voters - the Reagan Democrats, the Buchanan acolytes - this stuff does matter.  They'll consider Obama as long as he behaves like a "non-threatening black," but they'll dump him the instant his campaign starts focusing on "race issues," levying charges of racism, etc.

I took that diarist to be remarking on the phenomenon that's occurring, with white voters apparently moving away from Obama, rather than making any sort of value judgment about it.

by Steve M 2008-01-22 11:27AM | 0 recs
I disagree.

Anyone that cites Buchannan is insane...Sorry I am AA. So I am sensative to racist..

by TennesseeGurl 2008-01-22 11:34AM | 0 recs
Need I say more.

"Anyone that cites Buchannan is insane...Sorry I am AA. So I am sensative to racist.."

Yes you are over sensitive not to say over emotional. And btw the guys in the white coats have never been for me yet.

by ottovbvs 2008-01-22 01:58PM | 0 recs

How about this:

Anyone who cites -- with pretty clearly tinged language re:  ghetto -- Pat Buchanan on a Democratic site to support a Democratic candidate is, to put it charitably, misguided.

by ChrisR 2008-01-22 12:03PM | 0 recs
Did you read article?
Probably not otherwise you would know I used Buchanan's title more or less. The trouble with emotionally overheated folks like Mr ChrisR is they can't separate out reporting of opinions by a valid pundit who actually was in my opinion drawing accurate conclusions with certain qualifications, which I stated, from the my own personal views. It's basically, and there
s no other way of describing it, very juvenile. It basically confirms all those worst stereotypes of the far right about political correctness, inability to use proper language etc etc. I take it Mr Chris R your reading is limited to daily kos and Nation. This kind of intellectual bigotry is pretty sad if you think about it.  
by ottovbvs 2008-01-22 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you read article?

No, I did read his article.  If you recall, the precise argument at issue was the use of the word "ghetto."

The defense, if I recall, was that it was used by Pat Buchanan in the original article.

I guess my point is that if one cites the article for one's use of a racially insensitive term regarding, ahem, an African-American candidate -- well, let's go to Pat Buchanan's record.

I read Buchanan.  He's still locked into a 1950s-DC mindset of tribalism (his defense of Joe McCarthy, distrust if not hostility toward the Civil Rights Act, his use of rather aggressive language and code words as a speechwriter for Reagan and Nixon, etc...).  

My point is that one shouldn't use the word "ghetto" without being criticized for using insensitive language.  Further, if one cites the article as a defense, one should at least know the background of Mr. Buchanan and know that his citation of the word is hardly a defense.

And yeah, I read more than The Nation and Kos, thanks.

by ChrisR 2008-01-22 04:02PM | 0 recs

I did not read that piece, but I believe that Buchanan was bashing Clinton with this.  Regardless, I don't necessarily subscribe to the theme that "the other side" never says anything correct.  If Newt Gingrich states "Hillary Clinton is probably the favorite to win the Democratic nomination," then that is in no way a reason to go all nuclear on us, complain that Gingrich wants Hillary to win, why should we give Gingrich what he wants, etc.  Even a broken clock shows the right time twice a day, and even people we dislike make statements every now and then that make sense.

Now, the diarist may be advised to look at the way right-wing hack Andrew Sullivan is being held in high esteem by many Obama posters here.  I say right-wing hack (against the vehement protestation of several Obama posters who think of him as a modern-day hero) to be charitable, as other descriptions come readily to mind.  One classic example was his defense of the Bell Curve theory:

Moral Courage

Is defending The Bell Curve an example of intellectual honesty?

By Stephen Metcalf

Posted Monday, Oct. 17, 2005, at 3:40 PM ET

Imagine that the labels "morally courageous" and "intellectually honest" didn't refer to inner personal qualities but instead were prizes in a language game. The goal of the game is to be awarded the labels "morally courageous" and "intellectually honest." To win the prize, you must obey the rules: Never parrot conventional wisdom, and whenever possible, cast yourself as the victim of a speech-suppressing enemy. Any avid consumer of American newspapers and periodicals, especially over the last dozen or so years, will recognize the language game immediately: It's called "punditry." In punditry, the premium on being contrarian or unique is set very high, while the premium on being right often shrinks to an extensionless point. As is usually the case, the downgrading of truth brings with it an upgrading of sheer chutzpah, frequently under the guise of moral courage. I now point readers to an Aug. 26 post by Andrew Sullivan on his blog, which is worth quoting at length:

One of my proudest moments in journalism was publishing an expanded extract of a chapter from "The Bell Curve" in the New Republic before anyone else dared touch it. I published it along with multiple critiques (hey, I believed magazines were supposed to open rather than close debates) - but the book held up, and still holds up as one of the most insightful and careful of the last decade. The fact of human inequality and the subtle and complex differences between various manifestations of being human - gay, straight, male, female, black, Asian - is a subject worth exploring, period. Liberalism's commitment to political and moral equality for all citizens and human beings is not and should not be threatened by empirical research into human difference and varied inequality. And the fact that so many liberals are determined instead to prevent and stigmatize free research and debate on this subject is evidence ... well, that they have ceased to be liberals in the classic sense. I'm still proud to claim that label - classical liberal. And I'm proud of those with the courage to speak truth to power, as Murray and Herrnstein so painstakingly did.

Here the new hero of so many Obama fans makes claims that can only be considered racist to the core.  There is NO truth in Charles Murray's nazi-like smear bible "The Bell Curve" and that self-proclaimed "classical liberal" is really just a right-wing hack who has embraced Obama for the simplistic reason that he hates Clinton with a passion.  

Now, would it be ok for me to start a diary "Mydder agrees with racist and 'The Bell-Curve' defender Andrew Sullivan?"   I personally don't think so.

by georgep 2008-01-22 01:23PM | 0 recs
Link to the MYDD diary?

I hate to be blunt. We already spent too much time here. You could make our lives easier by putting a link to the diary that offended you. I have no idea what you are complaining about. I have not see any diary where it said Obama ghettoized the race. We get so many diaries here. LINK please.

by Pravin 2008-01-22 04:55PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads