Pasty wails today about the unseemly electoral tactics of John McCain in his defeat of The Joker-Look-Alike Contest Runner-Up, J.D. Hayworth.
A few quibbles, if I may, Mr. Buchanan:
1. J.D. Hayworth is not an "authentic" anything, let alone conservative. His kind of "conservatism" is a tribal affiliation, little more than the wearing of gang colors. Then again, neither is McCain a conservative. In the race between neither-really-a-conservative "Douchebag" and "Shit Sandwich", the people of Arizona chose "Douchebag" as the lesser of two evils. This, unfortunately, is the state of American electoral democracy today. In a perfect world, neither man would have been on the ballot. Why don't you write something about that tragedy, Patsy?
2. In the Obama-McCain race of 2008, I don't recall you being quite so critical of McCain, except for your appearances on MSNBC as resident-curmudgeon-in-chief, where there's a check involved, I imagine. In your own personal dilemma of Douchebag-vs-Shit-Sandwich-and-which-do-I-criticize-more-on-TV, you grudgingly supported Douchebag McCain too, if only because to do otherwise would have been a tacit approval of Obama.
3. Don't suddenly get bent out of shape because you've just NOW realized that politics is a dirty profession. I suggest that your disgust at the process has less to do with McCain's tactics as much as it does with his victory, because if you could do to a democrap what McCain did too Hayworth, you'd do so with an indecent haste.
4. How is it that someone still pays you for your opinions? You are the Al Sharpton of the Pantybunched Right.
5. This quote is quite puzzling...
"But if the GOP takes the advice of its establishment,
and the neocons who seek power to start another war, and walks away from
cultural, social and moral issues, which are far more popular than the party
itself, folks who care about the character of the country and national identity
should walk away from that party, and find outliers who will pick up the banner
and carry it forward..."
...coming, as it does, from one of those very same "establishment" figures in GOP politics, i.e. YOURSELF.
And what the fuck is a "neocon"? Ever since that term has come into common parlance, it seems that it's only possible definition is "a republican that doesn't agree with Me,and just cave to my ridiculous demands", and has been freely used by both the Communism-is-good-Left and the Taliban-Has-Some-Good-Points-Right. If it is, as I take it to mean "a republican who is willing to find common ground and consensus where that is possible, for the common good, even if it means telling the Church Pikers to fuck off", then this makes a nonsense of this little bit of stupidity in the very next paragraph;
Americans motivated by causes need to maintain their freedom and independence of both parties, forming what George W. Bush liked to call "alliances of the willing.
This is rich: in one paragraph you denounce the "Neocon" War-starters, and then cite George W. Bush (with whom the term "Neocon" originated), as a shining example of enlightened leadership? Do you even read what you write, anymore, Pat?