Race To The White House: Buchanan Calls Rachel Maddow's Arguments "Marxist"
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
One of my kids is home sick with strep and was bundled up on the sofa as I watched the primary coverage last night. Her question to me is what the talking heads could possibly find to discuss for the six or more hours of primary scheduling. Prescient one, my kid. Because as it turned out, things got a little punchy very early on, especially with the Race to the White House panel of David Gregory, Eugene Robinson, Rachel Maddow and Pat Buchanan.
Buchanan simply could not concede to the others that there are different voter motivations between primary and general elections, and for that reason, those who are counting Hillary Clinton out now are lying to themselves. Rachel Maddow tries to contextualize where Barack goes from here and Buchanan won't have it, telling her to stop with the "Marxist dialectic."
Maddow: What he needs to be saying is listen, in these big states that Pat keeps listing, sure when it’s two Democrats dividing the electorate, I’m not always winning. But I’m winning the overall race. I’m winning pledged delegates. I’m winning the money race. I’m winning the enthusiasm race. And I have a better chance against John McCain. They’re all talking about Republicans, they’re not talking about winning over white ethnic voters who aren’t going to come over to them in the general either.
Buchanan: Why can’t you beat Hillary Clinton with all her negatives? You got more money, biggest crowds in history. You got the enthusiasm. Every guy in the media says you’re the nominee and you can’t beat her in one of the big ten states in the country.
Maddow: There is no connection between his inability to beat Hillary Clinton and whether or not he can beat John McCain…two totally different kinds of races….
Buchanan: Let me tell you…you may be….Look, let’s hold the Marxist dialectic…you may believe right now that this thing is over, but there’s a lot of these super-delegates gotta be sitting there, saying…if I were a super-delegate for Barack, I’d say “I’m worried. Can this guy beat McCain [unclear], ‘cause I don’t know right now.”
Other than being rude, I'm not sure what Buchanan meant by that, and evidently, neither did anyone on the set either.
Its simple of course - If you're left of Pat Buchanan, you're a dirty commie! Really there's not much to think about, because Pat Buchanan doesn't exactly do a whole lot of intellectual work.
Buchanan is a racist homophobe. Duh. Every time a gay or a minority gets into a conversation with him, he tells them to shut up or calls them names.
Gene Robinson is an MSNBC sweetheart, so Buchanan knows he's the only one he can't talk shit to. But if you watch the two carefully, you can see Buchanan itching to tell Robinson to stfu just like he does to all the other minorities that have the audacity to speak in his presence.
It may be a dialectic, but it has nothing to do with Marxism.
Pat is just pushing a hot-word mental trigger.
What I wanna' know is how is this stupid fuck Buchanan , an expert on anything , especially winning a nomination for president ; didn't that ignorant shithead get embarrassingly trounced every time he ran for the Oval Office ?
What the hell is Pat talking about? Marxist? What? How?
His days as an reasonable opinion are numbered. Unless you count the voice of the morons.
As far as I can tell, it sounds like he's basically saying that Rachel was referring to an "Obama-leading-the-energized-poor-up-against-the-rich" class warfare scenario.
If being a Marxist is now defined as being opposite of neocons, then I am a proud Marxist.
Serious question: Why does MSNBC, or any news show other than Fox, have this right wing windbag on to analyze Democratic politicians? The man is of low average intelligence, based upon his comments. He is angrier than John McCain.
The rational for him and his brother, Bay, being sought out by Democrats for their considered opinions is simply beyond me.
C. Miller
Letter writing campaign? Time to retire this old basta*d. The coverage last night on msnbc was abysmal except for Rachel. think we need to defend our best commentator?
Good gorg! Buchanan may not epitomize the banal and inane level of our public discourse but he certainly furthers it.
Just as with the reactions to obama's speech on race, any sort of adult analysis (in this case by Rachel) is treated as over-intellecutal jargon, too sophisticated for the common folk, or in this case Marxist dialectic.
The reality however is that these people are unused to actualy adult level discourse.
Stunningly down level talk from Buchanan. Stunning.
Seriously...I think all of these right-wingers like Buchanan, are traitors to the Constitution, and this Nation, and should be treated as such.
My brother lives in Thailand and emailed me today that his girlfriend came home from the market rather rattled. They were out of rice and there was a rush to buy other food staples.
Capitalism is destroying our societies. Buchanan will one of the last to feel the effects. I can only hope that the effect he feels is in his ass courtesy of his cellmate.
Marxist and commies describing liberals is the new trend in Republican talking points. I'm hearing it on the national, state, and even local levels. Must have been a Memo sent out by Rove.
Marxist, hell, I'm a Groucho Marxist and don't the Republicans realize that China and Russia are our friends now?
Old Pat is about as old as Old McAncient. He makes few relevant points and prides himself with having a firm grasp on the obvious. His condescending cackle is what gets me.
Too bad no one had the presence of mind to ask Buchanan to explain himself. That's too bad. Shows of this type would be a lot more interesting those people would occasionally ask one another, "Now what the hell is that supposed to mean"? You know, like real people do.
He told an african american woman to shut up and Rachael called him on that. He now hates her and "her kind". An intelligent person who can use her critical thinking skills in a very intelligent way.
We want to drink beers with our prez not have him/her actually think
I use the phrase "MARXIST DIALECTIC" too. Sometmies in conjunction with the word "PARADIGM" or "PROACTIVE." It sounds educated. Hahaha ha huh ehhh.
Buchanan has really become unhinged in his enthusiasm for Hillary. Let's see--he's been a lifelong right-winger--so... what does it all mean? I see two possibilities. The no-brainer is that Hillary would be the ideal magnet for all the right wing nuts to come out of the woodwork (closet) on election day. The other possibility (and this could be a combo) is that for all her talk, Hillary is NOT a liberal. Anyone paying attention knows this. Remember all the griping by republicans that Bill kept "stealing" all their ideas? Look at their voting records. Hillary is a democrat--sure--but in no way does that make her liberal--much less progressive.
From the Neocon Playbook - rule #7
"If you're completely fooled in an argument and have no leg to stand on, call your opponent a "Marxist", "Communist", or "Hippie". In the ensuing confusion, leave the set."
Patty was just playing the book, kids.
When people like Buchanan have no good comeback to legitimate arguments, it seems they always resort to calling names like "socialist", "communist", "marxist", and, (gasp!) "the far, far left". It's supposed to scare the listeners into immediately discounting facts. Unfortunately, it works far too often.
(Hope your daughter feels better, Nicole. My child has a tendency to get strep. Not fun.)
You gotta love the right-wingee's who anytime someone mentions about coming together in a democratic way it's "marxist", so as to taint it. It's so psychologically obvious that these guys are jealous of left wing collectivism.
Right wing "thought" : Rachel is a Marxist and Obama is a Muslim.
I have given up on these people, they are beyond irrational.
Pat just isn't used to having to confront "facts" or "reason" it's been so long since either was present in a network news studio. BWWAAA! Why can't Maddow just nod and accept the Oss-UMness and "conventional wisdom-ness" that IS Pat Byu-cannon??!! A right-winger has a tough guy image to project after all.
He must be referring to Marx's Dialectic Materialism - a philosophical world view associated with Hegel's theory of historical process and political change.....two opposing social/political forces collide, one triumphs while other withers away, an opposing force begins to arise, these two collide and bring about the next stage of history (or in the case, the election).
I am no expert on Marx (Groucho possibly, not Karl though) but maybe Mr. Buchanan is incorrectly suggesting Ms. Maddow is applying Hegel's theory of political change to the election - which has nothing to do with Marxism, Bolshevism, or Communism.
Its a desperate, obvious attempt to just dismiss and name call while also sneakily associating Obama's followers and Democrats in general with Marxism (again).
I think what Buchanon was saying...is that Obama shouldn't bring Waffles to a Steak dinner.
Number 1: Buchanan can't stand to have a woman so much more intelligent than him.
Number 2: Buchanan likes to hear his own voice and thinks we should too.
Buchanan hang it up. No one values your opinion like you do. Why MSNBC insists on shoving Buchanan down our throats is a mystery.
*chuckle*
This is a glimpse into the minds of right-wingers and how they think. For a right-winger, everything is black-or-white, yes-or-no....no shades of grey or contextual frames that change the importance of certain facts.
Trying to see something while utilizing different frames of reference is dismissed as "Marxist." What horseshit.
I am really getting bored with seeing Rachel kick the asses of bullies like Buchanan and Scarborough. She's so much smarter....I almost feel for Pat's old fat ass.
Oops. I guess Jonah will now have to write a book about Liberal Marxism. Perhaps it could be co-authored by Pat, the dufus.
Buchanan: Why can’t you beat Hillary Clinton with all her negatives? You got more money, biggest crowds in history. You got the enthusiasm. Every guy in the media says you’re the nominee and you can’t beat her in one of the big ten states in the country.
Maddow: There is no connection between his inability to beat Hillary Clinton and whether or not he can beat John McCain…two totally different kinds of races….
--------------------
Um, aside from all the reality based stuff Buchanon raised (and it's IRRESPONSIBLE TO NOT think his points through!), the question, more succinctly asked becomes:
Which candidate is "closer" to Hillary in perception?
THAT'S who the those Hillary voters will go for.
And unfortunately for the empty-heads on the Dem side who have painted Hillary as being a warmonger (read: tough, in the minds of voters), that person will be John McCain.
Obama will never win the General Election.
mark.my.words.
Use some rational analysis for God's sake (and America's).
John Tulin @ 25:
I think you're giving Buchanan waaaaaaaaay too much credit...
destardi @ 31:
I don't believe in God.
These insane Christofascist traitors are still stuck in the 1960's, still trying to rook and swindle the American people into thinking that there are commies under every bed. What insane fascists.
There's really nothing even close to Marxism when it comes to either of the democratic candidates
Anyone who does not see things the way Pat does is a Marxist. It is easier for him to dismiss other people's views that way.
Left&Left @ 29:
Not me...I could watch that 24/7
John Tulin @ 25:
Pat Buchanan. Referring to Hegel. Riiiiight. LOL. That's a good one :-D
Once again, I will make the point that I am forced to make again and again.
Just because Marx got the solution wrong, doesn't mean that there wasn't a problem in the first place.
And when you have HuffPo (an ex-republican) posting unflattering pictures of two white men with the title "Another White Guy Election"
DO YOU HONESTLY MEAN TO TELL ME that being disrespectful to these kinds of voters, that Obama will win them in the GE?
Is that not the very definition of "elitism"?
Thought we were the party of the working man; then with every opportunity the power-grabbing far left are trumpeting "lower income, uneducated whites" and sound very condescending.
That's not the Democratic Party it's supposed to be.
destardi @ 26:
Yeah because Pat knows all about successful and winning campaigns. You know as soon as Obama gets into Hillary's cesspool and goes negative you'll come out of the woodwork with another "gotcha"....even if what Omama says is true. He can't ever win with people like you.
Does Buchanan beleive anybody to the left of his phylosophy is a Marxist?
Oh, relax!
Pat was cracking a joke and everyone laughed after.
The lack of humor in the progressive blogs is getting tiresome.
Buchanan was crazy last night. At the beginning of the coverage, he said Hilary had "clobbered" Obama in Texas and Ohio, when she actually lost Texas with the caucus delegates factored in, and then later on he said Hilary's 10% margin meant she "clobbered" Obama. He then baselessly asserted that Obama's speech was "tired" sounding, and said that Clinton has all the momentum now. He was pretty much a waste of space as an analyst from what I saw.
There has never been a communist country in the history of the world. The fear of communists is a lie perpetuated by fear mongers. Communism is a pipe dream that can never be obtained. Ideals are good, but they aren't realistic.
These anti-Marxists are afraid of two things: losing their money and status.
navyswan @ 33:
Either do I.
What I find amazing is from the entire post, you zero in on something I could care less about..a personal, self-directed comment.
JoeCHI @ 43:
Amen to that.
Since when is an opposing point of view, spoken by an intelligent participant in a reasoned debate, "Marxist dialectic"??
The guy doesn't even know what Marxist dialectic is. It isn't conversation, it's a historical conflict between classes that takes place on a macro, societal level, over decades and generations.
Buchanan is the guy who called Canada 'Soviet Canuckistan' because we have (efficient, accessible, cost-effective, high-quality) Commie-Socialist-Fascist single-payer public health care. Or as he calls it, Socialized Medicine. Enough said.
Rude? Rude? I did not think Pat was being rude, he just wanted to get this "spin" across to the others that would not listen at that time. All of them have a big mouth.
Shorter Buchanan: "Shut up little girl, you ain't in my league."
He was stung by Rachel's comment, feeling he got bested. So, natch, he pulled academic rank. How ironic.
GambitRF @ 44:
Hillary lost Texas? I didn't know that! Learn something new everyday. Obama does sound like a broken record.
Left&Left @ 41:
What.are.you.talking.about.
Are you familiar with Mayor Daley?
Talk about CESSPOOLS.
here ya go:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801130004
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_8120...
Who started and continued the racebaiting?
Hmm.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/did_clinton_darken_obamas_skin.html
"If Obama didn’t want to be compared to Jesse Jackson, maybe he shouldn’t have put R&B in his SC advertisements, shouldn’t have sent black-only emissaries to the Black SC community, and should have put Wright, who was doing the rounds, on pause. The message in South Carolina put out by Obama’s campaign, whether the media wanted to ignore it or not, was “Vote for me I am Black.” To then come back and smash Bill Clinton for mentioning Jesse Jackson, that’s audacity; Axelrod made this clear through his surrogates, while he had Obama say that what the Clintons’ said was “unfortunate.”
Cesspool.
Yea, the cesspool that Obama swims in, that made up my mind against him when he failed to IMMEDIATELY and DECISIVELY refuse to let the only SUCCESSFUL DEMOCRATIC President in recent times and his wife be labeled as racists.
That's pretty much showing me his "unity pony" is not coming home to roost...
Bush said he was a divider; how'd that turn out?
Obama will be the Dem's version of Bush.
1)Same type of believing everything the press says about Obaam without questioning him
2)throw back personal insults when confronted with valid points
3)maintain that solid 30% of morons (like bush's bushbots) who always vote in Bush's best interests.
No thanks.
JoeCHI @ 43:
Look. Hold the Heidegerrian Apologistics, OK. Pat was dead serious. This is no time for jokes!
Man, these reichwinger thugs can't even keep their insults straight.
What happened to calling us fascists?
The best commentary I've heard about Buchanan: My eldest daughter (age 8) came into my study to ask me something when Buchanan went off.
She asked: "Is he sick or something, 'cause he doesn't look well."
ww @ 50:
He doesn't have academic rank. Especially not over Rachel.
Dave @ 53:
I thought the original post was a joke.
You have to see Buchanan for what he is - comic relief. He always makes me laugh on The McLaughlin Report.
There are folk in the publican party who blame pat for pappa boosh's loss to Bill Clinton after his Deuschland Uber Alles speech.
The other day my senile old father was pontificating about the differences between Golden Delicious, Navels & Valencias. And I said "Dad, did you take your Alzheimer's medicine? You’re comparing apples and oranges!”
Then he called me a Marxist. :(
Buchanan: Why can’t you beat Hillary Clinton with all her negatives? You got more money, biggest crowds in history. You got the enthusiasm. Every guy in the media says you’re the nominee and you can’t beat her in one of the big ten states in the country.
To answer Buchanan's question he need only look into a mirror. The MSM and their conservative handlers WANT the race to continue. They are playing the candidates against each other (see Bill Clinton's supposed race baiting accusations). THEY are setting the tone. They keep alive the insignificant comments that have no bearing on the overall goal of the Democratic party, which is to defeat the republicans.
In my dreams I see both the Clintons and the Obamas holding a news conference to reaffirm their solidarity to defeat the republicans and putting us on notice that the Dems have one common goal this election year, and that the MSM will not set the agenda.
Kumbaya MF's.
Fascist calling the Marxist black?
Lighten up, he was trying to get a dig on Obama in the Obama love fest on MSNBC.
The tide has turned.
Stop whining and start winning.
"Iran ready to discuss nuclear dispute-Ahmadinejad"
Yup, don't mess with Clinton.
Obama can't beat Hillary in the big battleground states we need to win in November. He can't win the "swing" voters.
His delegate lead (she's ahead in the popular vote) is based on wins in solid red states that we WILL NOT WIN in November.
Oh my, let's hurry up and nominate His Whinyness!
McGovern-Mondale-Dukakis-Obama
The few, the lame, the losers
I saw this and I thought for a second Rachel Maddow was going to slap him. :D
As much as Buchanan's remarks seem to come directly from his rectum, Rachel's reaction is so funny to me. Same as the video of that racist Colorado legislator; the reaction of the speaker at the very end made me laugh every time I saw it. She looked so incredibly stunned at his remarks.
We've all heard these republicans say the stupidest things imaginable, but they still seem to shock us every once in a while, rendering the common-sense folks to drop their jaws, almost speechless :O
He was basically saying to Rachel that she shouldn't think logically about what's going on in the race. That is, "Marxist dialectics," his way of dismissing her (and maybe all) logical arguments, are not appropriate for cable news or the MSM.
#45---Now,that's some intelligent commentary,there! Why does America continue to define itself by who or what were allegedly AGAINST? WHY ,cannot and is not, the meme to DEFINE ourselves by what we stand FOR!...OOPS, I guess that won't work out too well anymore,since we haven't stood up FOR something noble in quite a while now.(You know the old adage,"If you don't stand FOR something,you'll FALL for ANYTHING!"
Fuck this old windbag.
JoeCHI @ 43:
Bullshit. He was dead serious. They were laughing AT him, not with him.
myiq2xu @ 64:
i don't mean to rain on your ignorance-parade, but i must:
"About half the party-switchers had been registered Republicans, while the rest had been unaffiliated with either party or were voting for the first time in Pennsylvania.
Most of those new Democrats were mobilized to come out for Obama, and they were nearly one-fifth of Obama's supporters. Even the former Republicans favored Obama over Clinton, largely invalidating rumors that Republicans would vote strategically in the Democratic primary in support of Clinton, hoping she would be easier to defeat in November."
do some research next time. thank you.
oops, here's the link
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24263829/
I think the teeth of the comb Pat is using for his comb over (could that part get any closer to his left ear?) are starting to scratch his brain.
Che's Lounge @ 70:
exactly and it is really sad when talkign heads like Pat (and those watching him) can't figure that out
Let's see, if I'm MSNBC and I want to gin up support for Obama why don't I put two pundits on who are completely in the tank for Obama, Robinson and Maddow, and have them argue with an angry old coot, Buchanan, that no Democrat can stand. Gee, I wonder which candidate that's going to make look better?
Once again, when confronted with a liberal whom he cannot best intellectually, Buchanan resorts to his time honored fishing trick, throwing out the red herring as ad hominem.
pissed off patricia @ 5:
Exactly my sentiments. Pat's non sequiter was literally unintelligible.
MSNBC's challenge these days is guys like Pat and Scarborough are reverting back to the conservative cheerleading- especially the past few weeks, they've been as anti-Obama as you can get.
What most of these pundits forget is that when you have two strong candidates, they each win some and each lose some. We're in the 8th inning and Obama has a good lead, strong closer, etc.
Matthews and Keith need to call these right wingers out for who they are- they've joined the Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly crowd in trying to destroy Obama before he even gets to the convention because THEY KNOW he'll beat McCainBush in the fall. Otherwise, why else would Scaithe endorse Hillary, for goodness sake?
Patty confused Marxist dialectic with Marxist dialogue.
Woist thing I ever heard.
Che's Lounge @ 70:
no doubt
You don't have to be a Marxist to argue dialectally in the manner used in Marxist thought. That said, Maddow would have had to taken it a step further, arguing that Obama's failure to beat Clinton made him stronger in this instance to beat McCain. Something like that. As is, there was no immediate contradiction in her statement to work through dialectically. It wasn't a Marxist dialectic.
Totally off topic, but I had to bring up something I've noticed.
Have you ever noticed that Buchanan, Hannity and Shrub do alot of squinting? It seems to be one of 2 or 3 expressions that all three seem to posess. At times all three seem to have a strong facial similarity to Moe Howard of the 3 Stooges.
Just saying.
Remember when we used to hear the one thing that would get ALL republicans out to vote in November was if Hillary got the dem nomination. We would hear that all repubs, especially right wing fundamentalist christians hated her so much they would do anything to get to vote against her.
destardi @ 52:
You write alot but you don't really say much. Yes, I know Mayor Daley(I live in Chicago) so don't waste YOUR time giving me YOUR "facts" about my city. The spin you use on Obama would make O'Reilly proud..."vote for me I am black" was never said by anyone but your stupid ass. Destardi, you're wasting time here with third person TMZ innuendo to shape your Hillary/McCain arguments. You talk like Hillary is winning. STOP BEATING THIS DEAD HORSE. IT'S OVER. ENJOY THIS VICTORY. IT'S OVER. Obama 08. lol.
The loud talking, hand waving, truth ignoring comment of the day wasn't Buchanan's, but William Bennett's on CNN while trying to keep the William Ayres distraction alive: "He tried to blow up the Pentagon!"
When Hillary and her husband were in the White House, Buchanan vilified them every chance he got. He painted them as the worst people on the planet. What a conversion!Now Hilliary is up there in the stars. Of course, her opponent is a black man, which means to racist Pat, Hillary has to win, because America can not endure a black man in the White House. What a hypocrite and racist this guy is. Why is he still employed by MSNBC?
Ok....first off...the right wingnut pundit/talking heads/uber wealthy right wingnut noise machine apologists realize that their
idiotic followers/enablers/financiers will buy wholesale, any soundbyte that is under 3 words or shorter than 5 seconds to say.
Its the hallmark of con-servatism. Keeping it simple isn't for efficiency with their followers, its out of necessity.
Second, The 'buzzword' for the GOP/right wingnuts this year is 'marxist'
Ask any right wingnut idiot what that means....90% you'll get a blank stare and 'socialism' or 'communism' thrown at you
When you ask them to define socialism or communism, you get some completely ridiculous 10 second answer that sounds like
they read it off the back of a cereal box, at which point I either try to explain the two concepts as a form of governance or economic policy
or tell them to take a Political science class (if it looks like it will take an hour).
The most 'fun' you'll ever have is explaining the democratic socialist regimes in Northern Europe/Scandinavian countries to a right wingnut.
To see them attempt to wrap their brains around the two concepts working in cohesion is a treat in itself...
Explaining how the governance is a democratic portion, and the economic policy is a socialist portion of the equation...
Oh...and if you really want to take them for a spin, inform them that China is a communist 'free market' society, that they transitioned from a
'soviet style' economy to a 'free market' based one where the big monopolies are veritable extensions of the actual government.
destardi @ 31:
god has nothing to do with this..or America.
and you're wrong on everything else too.
Uh-oh. Looks like little Patty needs to re-take Highschool philosophy.
Oops...that's what I get for not proof-reading....
Meant to include POLITICAL SYSTEM in my rant on the use of 'marxist' above
This is "red baiting", pure and simple.
Bitter for Obama (aka right wing hater) @ 87:
You are truly devious...in the good sorta way.
Pat needs to go back to the nursing home...he's totally lost it.
liberalHUSSEINmoderation @ 92:
You are truly devious...in the good sorta way.
I know, I know, I caught myself after hitting 'submit comment'....that's what passion can do....
I could re-word it, but I think the basic points got across... ;)
Did those media images of the collapse of the USSR somehow, um, not happen in Pat's world? I mean, maybe in the 1950s-80s Communist would be an insult. Post-1991? Who gives a damn? What Bizarro world is he living in?
Marxist------------------- the media's and the repubs newest buzz word.
The repugs started working "Marxist" into the, *ahem*, dialog (one doesn't actually dialog with repugs: you hold them down and give them rabies shots) a few weeks ago. I heard it first from some bloviating idiot on my local conservative radio station and the very next day it was appearing in repug articles and memes. These people have a hive mind like no other, bunch of dicks that they are. Resist the Collective!
I can understand the complaints about Buchanan. He is no mental giant and I can't think that the average man on the street is any worse a source for sage advice.
However -- look at the benefits. Instead of a row of "experts" who are merely industry shills, and maybe a Liberal punching bag like Al Sharpton, who manages to annoy Liberals almost as much as he annoys Conservatives -- we have Rachel Maddow. Rachel is sharp, witty, and does not make us look bad. She doesn't pull punches but she doesn't get ugly either. Being that NeoCons in general a bat crazy and Buchanan is only critical because he wants a white man to still get a job in the USA,... Buchanan is probably the best of the breed. Really, who else is functionally literate who can take his place? They've already scraped the bottom of the barrel. And if they brought someone like Krystal or Sapphire, well, then I'm sure Rachel could probably beat them in arm wrestling as well. The showing on MSNBC might be lousy for real discussion, but it sure is fun to see these fascists get a good pounding. Hoo-rah!
Bitter for Obama (aka right wing hater) @ 94:
I know, I know, I caught myself after hitting 'submit comment'....that's what passion can do....
I could re-word it, but I think the basic points got across... ;)
Nah man...leave it like it is...it's perfect.
VitriolAndAngst @ 98:
Ya know...I was kinda thinkin the same thing...
Something else ironic is that people think real Communism still exists. The socialist states collapsed a long time ago, and even well before then the Bolsheviki had long since moderated. By their very nature, a revolutionary regime must moderate. Happened to the Ayatollah, happened to the USSR, to the People's Republic, to the United States, to Wilhelmine Germany, and so on.
There hasn't been real Communism on the planet since at least 1985....
He's probably being aggressive so she doesn't bitch-slap him the way she did Scarborough. These old, white christian men like driving with one hand in their pants and they DON'T want to play with girls.
*
I like Rachel Maddow as much as I dislike Buchanan but in your case, it doesn't matter what Buchanan is saying because your as blind as the Right is....they can't see beyond McCain and this website can't see beyond Obama.
The age of reasoning and listening (because you just might learn something different) has never been the American strong point.
E_I @ 45:
It goes something like this;
You have your thesis.
Which in Marxism is the Industrial Revolution.
The thesis comes into conflict with the antithesis which is workers rights and their economic needs.
The result of these two agendas conflicting with one another results in the synthesis:
Marx never explained what the synthesis would look like; he had no idea; but, he labelled it communism.
Marx was wrong about a lot of specifics; but the model is a functioning model.
The term communism was replaced by the term globalism.
But one of things you have to remeber about Marx's writings is that he said Nations were artificial constructs designed to distribute wealth. One of the things he said was that when the worker class conflicted (and he didn't necessarily mean a violent conflict either) with the owner class the resulting communist society would no longer need nations to distribute wealth. We see this today with Free Trade Agreements, Nafta, or things like the European Union.
Nations are kinda the old way of distributing wealth and communism is the new way so no such thing as a communist nation can ever exist.
We live in sort of unique time. Kind of an in between state. On one hand we still have nations; on the other hand we have this globalist communist society emerging.
The real struggle isn't between nations or globalism; the real struggle is how this global communist society is going to distribute its wealth.
People like Bush think that the new mechanism of distributing wealth should only favor the ruling elite class and the rest of humanity thinks it should be shared more equitably.
So you see comrade; we are all communists.
There's a history here. Pat hates Rachel. He actually told her to shup up on some msnbc show:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/13/110/35533/399/475575
He's a spiteful, hateful, and not very smart. Why is he on the air at all?
upchuck @ 104:
Very valid point. The current economic system is largely built as you describe, with a difference between left-wing redistribution for the larger group and the right-wing for the smaller group. A good definition of the right-wing is "yesterday's socialism and liberalism" after all...
liberalHUSSEINmoderation @ 12:
I couldn't agree more.
I'm waiting for Rachel to reach over and smack the crap out of Buchanan.
If Rachel were running for President, I would change my vote to her.
Ms Maddow is obviously driving the grumpy right-wing/unintentional-comic-relief of MSNBC nuts. Buchanan is a harmless geezer, but Rachel should watch out for Joe the Killer.
Here is the example that epitomizes the arrogance of America.
You just saw the Pope. It took him like 50 years in the Orders to reach that position.
You look at how long it takes Police & Fire Chiefs, Doctors to become Surgeon General, even friggin head of various departments in a high school.
But wait....America feels it's perfectly fine for them to offer to the rest of the world (who they think nothing of interfering into their politics with)a candidate who has less than 1 (ONE) term of office experience.
Hey...they might be ok with some clown running Illinois but the world is a pretty big stage and you better know it well. Know, understand and world towards its needs.
Arse-hole Bush didn't even come to Canada until he was in office.
And the world is suppose to buy into this arrogance.
Show us the MEAT America!
It just floors me how a college educated person like Pat would have no idea what a dialectic is. The philosopher Hagel came up with the dialectic model. Marx applied the dialectic model to only economics, nothing else. If your talking about elections then you would have to say a Hagellian Dialectic. But even at that, it would also require an antithesis and a synthesis for the model to hold. It just amazes me that somebody that worked as a White House staffer wouldn't know this. This makes me wonder what kind of dumbed-down mumbo-jumbo these Ivy League Professors are teaching?
When you're a fascist, everything looks Marxist.
StirFry @ 108:
I agree. I watch that crazy fucker every morning and he is a mean guy who hates women(Hillary doesn't count...go figure). Rachel should keep a taser when she works near that fucker.
VitriolAndAngst @ 98:
That's what baffles me about punditry. Anyone can do it. In fact, we all do it here every day. We banter with one another, make (bad) predictions, and create C&L threads that could rival any of these television shows in quality. Who exactly sees these regular pundits as deserving? How does that decision get made? Why do they have a louder, televised megaphone? It's very weird.
Rachel is awesome! She's got smarts, encyclopedic political knowledge and an quick, eloquent wit. And she's on our side! I think it says a lot that the best conservatives can do when arguing against her is to call her Marxist, interrupt her, condescend, or resort to insulting her gender or sexuality. They're losing, and they know it, and it's a pleasure to watch apes like Buchanan emerge from debates with her barely breathing.
Buchanan is not of that breed. He's not a neo-con. He's a paleo-con. Replace the imperialism and exploitation of Theocratic Christians of neo-conservatism with isolationism and genuine yearnings for a Christian Theocracy and you get Pat Buchanan.
This isn't the first time Buchanan has said something wacky about Rachel. He's obviously having trouble relating to another talking head who isn't either a cranky old man conservative or a republican witch like his sister or kaye bailey hutchison....
you are all over reacting on this one. although he used the word marxist while talking to a liberal on a political talk show, he wasn't refering to politics.
i think that he simply meant that she was parsing the issue into Obama winning against McCain and Obama winning against Clinton as not being the same thing.
he was saying that the argument should be about Obama's ability to win, outright against any one period as the issue.
so he was refering to the philosophical way of framing an argument, not refering to Marxism in the political sense.
Dave @ 114:
I think ol' Pat kinda has the hots for Rachel. Seriously.
MSNBC is so deep in the tank for Obama they can't even cover a primary without their Obama bias showing thru. I guess that's why Madcow can only get a show on ERR America with their 3 listeners and why Keith Olbyloon on a good night can get barely a third of ratings that O'Reilly gets. Pat is one of only 2 or 3 sane voices on that entire network. When will the left see themselves as the joke that they really are.
113 Karen Says:
Rachel is awesome! She’s got smarts, encyclopedic political knowledge and an quick, eloquent wit.
I got everything but the eloquence
And longer hair.
Surely Obama's "not being able to beat Hillary" has nothing to do with malfunctioning voting machines in Philadelphia, right? It couldn't be that people who had to wait hours to vote on a machine only to find it broken when it was their turn, who then had to ask for a paper balllot and wait another hour to get one, it couldn't be that right? And we all know what they do with paper ballots now don't we?
I can't wait for the Oregon primary. Mail in ballots no waiting in lines and no machines - we'll see what the numbers are then.
get a clue @ 117:
Surprising that nbc would be for Obama- NBC owned by GE, one of the biggest profiteers off these wars - wouldn't they be supporting Hillary "let's nuke Iran" Clinton?
Obama Edwards '08 @ 119:
Ahh you can outspend Hil 4-1 and still not win, it just has to be an evil conspiracy you my friend are pathetic.
Obama Edwards '08 @ 119:
The houses are few and far between here in Oregon so we rely upon the poney express to deliver our ballots.
No, in all seriousness. It is amazing to actually have an Oregon Primary viewed as important. Usually, those East Coast People (anyone living east of the Sierra Nevada's) decide the canidates months before we get to vote. I think that is why we always end up with such loser Presidential Canidates.
I saw it. Rachel was in temporary shock and then smoothly laughed it off. I get the sense that Rachel, Pat, and Keith would be totally OK having a beer together and giving each other crap for their political views without taking any of it all that personally. As much as I disagree with Pat, he has this odd quality of being, well, not likeable but toleratable and somewhat amusing.
Buchanan's Marxist comment is merely an extension of a reference he made on a similar program just a few days back when he said that the strategy for McCain and the Repugs will be - or is - to paint Obama as just another raving leftist, communist/socialist, ACLU-symthatic, weirdo, that just happens to also be black...I mean, in this sick country what more do you need?
And we wonder why some people don't feel comfortable spouting 'God Bless America' just because Irving Berlin wrote it, Kate Smith sung it and we happen to have been born in it? This 'my country right or wrong' stuff has it's limits for some of us.
PeninsulaMatt @ 123:
He's managed to remake himself into that character on television. His makeover seems largely to be a response to neo-conservatism, with which he takes serious issue, and which occasionally renders him the strange bedfellow of progressives.
But make no mistake, Buchanan is an old-style isolationist who looks back on the racism, segregation and repression of the 1950s with nostalgia. You wanna see the real Pat Buchanan? Go find his speech from the 1992 Republican Convention in which he implores straight, white America to "take back your culture."
She should have INTERUPED him and said: "OK..enough of this NAZI-LEAVE IT TO BEAVER stuff old man...."...lol.
Bill1013 @ 7:
I wonder if he knew he was saying that?
I think some of you are overthinking this. There was absolutely no substance to the remark. He literally just pulled a "scary word" out of his ass because he had nothing rational to say. Calling what she said "Marxist Dialectic" makes as much sense as calling her a "stupidhead". The problem is that this format encourages rapid thinking skills and his mouth was just running a lot faster than his brain. He resorted to an ad hominem attack, one of the many logical fallacies you see every hour on T.V.
The new bullshit talking point is "how can Obama beat McCain if he can't even beat Hillary?" A subpoint of this is, "How can Obama win PA (for example) in November if he can't win it now?" Both are idiotic, meaningless talking points. Rachel is a rational thinker and called him on the flimsy argument, and he had nothing, bc he HAS nothing. He is a vapid message-spewer. When she called him on it, expecting (as she seems to always expect) an actual, rational discourse, he had nothing and just threw out "Marxist Dialectic." It was only so obviously bizarre to people who know what Marxist Dialectic is, know that this wasn't it, and therefore know that Pat is an intellectual lightweight. The problem is (in general) most of the viewing public probably is not educated in the writings of Marx and thus assumed he knew what he was talking about (and also that Rachel is a "commie").
Take away people's education and you can control them. Thus Fox News, CNN, hell, all of it.
I just hate it when Buchanan starts chopping the air with his fore arms and then his voice registers up into a very annoying high pitched whine
High enough to make Bill the Cat cover his ears and shake until the dust is blowing around the room. aack
Marxist dialectic...look it up. Buchanan holds a degree in philosophy.
Well, in his defense, Buchanan wanted to call Maddow a lesbian...
Want to know more about Dialectics?
Read the book by L. Ron Hubbard...
gingerous @ 131:
Not remotely relevant.
getalife @ 63:
Defending Pat Buchanan? Where the hell did you people come from? Have you always been Democrats, or are you all recent "crossovers"?
And people still want to listen to this buffoon? buchanan should be paying CNN to LET him be on their show. What a loser!!
gingerous @ 131:
Well, since he holds a degree in philosophy, he must be making sense. We're familiar with dialectic, and its many forms. Why don't you offer a cogent argument to explain how Maddow's observation that Obama's performance in a state's primary has little or nothing to do with how he'll fare in the general election is one of Marxist dialectics.
Old Billy Hussein @ 133:
Hee hee. I was going to make a similar pun.
Hulk @ 136:
I don't think that too many people want to listen to him. Or any of the buffoons on these networks.
If they do, it's a kind of emperor-has-no-clothes phenomenon. A buffoon's appearance on such a program itself legitimates the buffoonery, and elevates it in people's minds. So, they think to themselves, well, he keeps showing up on an important channel, so he must have something important to say.
In other words, people want to listen to him because they think people want to listen to him.
Let's make sure we understand that Pat is NO mental giant. In fact I'd be amazed if he didn't get his talking points DIRECTLY from Cheeney's office every morning by courier...
100% talk - 2% fact...above average for a repuglican....
This episode is about the future of MSNBC than the issues. Tweety, Mornin' Joe and Buchanan has issues with Maddow, mostly because she stands up to them and is rarely rattled. One of those guys are gonna be gone (after the election?) with Maddow getting a larger presence.
Well, Pat may be extremely misguided, but he's not a total idiot. I'm just not sure exactly how he sees Rachel's arguement as a dialectic (thesis, antithesis, synthesis = Obama wins delegates and lots of donations, loses big states, but can win against McCain???). I get the sense he's not using "Marxist dialectic" as a euphemism for "commie pinko." I think Nicole and others are overreacting here. Yes, I am defending Pat Buchanon, God help me. "You just called Rachel a communist! How dare you??" is not the smart response here.
These clowns are not USE to being challenged by a REAL progressive and i mentioned previously you can see Buchanan jumping out of his seat to interrupt Rachel every day and the little coward Scarborough walks off the stage , because he experienced a first in three ways , getting his pathetic butt kicked by a lesbian , a progressive AND somebody FAR more intelligent like Rachel Maddow .
She intimidates the hell out of these loud mouth propagandists , because they are use to going up against lightweights like Kinsley , Press or nobody all .
John Tulin @ 25:
Hey, yeah... that must be it! Pat Buchanan simply focused all 98 of his IQ points to reference the Hegelian Dialectic! If David Gregory had allowed it, Pat was about to steer the discussion to Lukacs's "History and Class Consciousness" and then launch into a scathing but irrefutable deconstruction of Trotskyism. But alas, time did not allow...
He's quite the scholar for being such a a bigoted, blowhard dimwit.
I know Marxists; Marxists have been good friends of mine; unfortunately, Rachel is no Marxist. But there's still time...
Jess @ 141:
How, exactly is Nicole overreacting? When did Nicole say that Buchanan called Maddow a Communist? She admits in the post that she isn't sure what the hell Buchanan meant, other than to be rude.
The point here is simply how the likes of Buchanan just spout things when face to face with Maddow. They don't know what to say to her. So, they just say anything to get her to stop talking. This time, he said, "let’s hold the Marxist dialectic." It's just what came into his head when he was trying to argue with her. The other day, Joe Scartissue said, "I don't do crossfire." Next, one of them will say, "Come now, Rachel, puppetry does not become you," and it will make about as much sense.
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulsh**.
-W.C. Fields
Buchanan: baffler extraordinaire. Still, it's amusing how he and Scarborough are unable to conceal their frustration at being constantly pwned in a reality-based argument.
Pats a pinko baiter from way back...
If Obama doesn't beat Hillary in PA doesn't mean he can't beat McCain in November. Rachel is right. Apples vs oranges. Why does Buchanan ignore the more direct evidence (the latest national polls) from the latest polls showing Obama CAN beat McCain. These MSM talking heads. . . . Please, Rachel, slap them upside the head.
Karen @ 137:
Pardon the intrusion, and maybe I'm off base here, but L. Ron Hubbard wrote Dianetics, not dialectic. Probably you know that and I'm just missing the joke, but I figured I'd just post anyway......
rain @ 51:
Ummmm yeah, she did lose Texas. Just because YOU don't know something doesn't mean it didn't happen- sorry to burst your arrogant bubble.
He got 99 delegates, she got 94. That's called "losing".
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/03/11/its-official-clinton-lo...
DO try to keep up, please. It's annoying, this having to constantly educate the hilbots.
Comments are closed on this entry