Pat Buchanan gets dirty

[raven56706]

with salad dressing


http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/POLITICS/04/01/buchanan.attacked.ap/vert.buchanan.ap.jpg

KALAMAZOO, Michigan (AP) -- Commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan cut short an appearance after an opponent of his conservative views doused him with salad dressing.

"Stop the bigotry!" the demonstrator shouted as he hurled the liquid Thursday night during the program at Western Michigan University. The incident came just two days after another noted conservative, William Kristol, was struck by a pie during an appearance at a college in Indiana.

After he was hit, Buchanan cut short his question-and-answer session with the audience, saying, "Thank you all for coming, but I'm going to have to get my hair washed."

The demonstrator, identified by authorities as a 24-year-old student at Kalamazoo Valley Community College, was arrested and faces a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace. He was released on a $100 cash bond, pending his April 14 arraignment.

"He could have faced a felony assault charge, but Pat Buchanan decided to not press that charge," university spokesman Matt Kurz said.

Buchanan's visit had evoked controversy on campus because it fell on the birthday of the late Mexican-American labor leader Cesar Chavez. Buchanan favors tighter controls on immigration.

Kristol, editor of the influential conservative magazine The Weekly Standard and former chief of staff to Vice President Quayle, was splattered by a student during a speech Tuesday at Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana.

Members of the audience at the Quaker college jeered the student, then applauded as Kristol wiped the pie from his face and said, "Just let me finish this point." Kristol then completed his speech and took questions from the audience.

The student, who was not immediately identified, was suspended and could face expulsion following a disciplinary review, Earlham Provost Len Clark said Wednesday.

Clark also issued a written apology complimenting Kristol for his "graciousness."

[wendersfan]

Wow. Kristol and Buchanan have class. :up:

[wmansir]

Video (http://video.woodtv.com/index.php?video_id=437)

[raven56706]

it isnt working

[Red Dog]

Looks like Caesar Dressing.

[raven56706]

can someone photochop it with like salad around him or something like that

[NORML54601]

can someone photochop it with like salad around him or something like that
Or maybe a few black cocks

[dick_grayson]

Or maybe a few black cocks

:whofart:

[Red Dog]

Or maybe a few black cocks

Pat Bukkake. ;)

[kvrdave]

Ah, the tolerance of a liberal. :lol:

"We embrace all views....EXCEPT YOURS!!!!"

[wmansir]

it isnt working

It's still working for me, but perhaps it's reading from my cache.

[Myster X]

peace studies? rotfl

http://www.indystar.com/articles/3/233155-3993-102.html

Earlham student hits pundit with pie

Associated Press
March 30, 2005

RICHMOND, Ind. -- A pie in the face didn't silence conservative pundit William Kristol during a speech at Earlham College.

A man who later was identified as a student at the private Quaker college jumped onto the stage and splattered Kristol with the pie Tuesday night about 30 minutes into a speech about U.S. foreign policy.

Members of the audience jeered the student as he walked off the stage, then applauded as Kristol wiped the goo off his face with a paper towel and said, "Just let me finish this point," the Palladium-Item reported.

The student was suspended and could face expulsion following a disciplinary review, Earlham Provost Len Clark said today.

The school, which did not release the student's name, said Kristol was hit by an ice cream pie. Some of the pie also hit college President Doug Bennett, who was sitting on the stage.

Clark issued a written apology complimenting Kristol for his "graciousness."

Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard in Washington who was chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle, finished his speech after he was hit by the pie and then took questions from the audience before spending 30 minutes talking with students and others who gathered at the edge of the stage.

Earlham is a liberal arts college of about 1,200 students that is well-known for its peace studies program.

[dick_grayson]

It's still working for me, but perhaps it's reading from my cache.


works for me.....it just takes about 30 secs to connect

[nevermind]

Pat Bukkake. ;)

rotfl rotfl

[DarkElf]

Ah, the tolerance of a liberal. :lol:

"We embrace all views....EXCEPT YOURS!!!!"
It's pretty sad, isn't it? What the hell is wrong with people? :mad:

I appreciate the fact that you didn't lump *all* liberals in with this a-hole. :up: But of course, there's plenty of intolerance on both sides.

[Jason]

Too bad it wasn't a sack of shit.

[Myster X]

Too bad it wasn't a sack of shit.

I'm glad you're a tolerance liberal.

[Jason]

I'm glad you're a tolerance liberal.

I can only tolerate so much.

[Canadian Bacon]

Too bad it wasn't a sack of shit.
Why would you throw shit on shit?

[Goldblum]

Why would you throw shit on shit?
Looks like we found another one. :lol:

[Norm de Plume]

Buchanan is far from being the most odious conservative commentator these days. I think he has evolved a little over the years. Whatever the case, pie-throwing only denigrates the thrower.

[Michael Ballack]

How about throwing shit on Pat would be an insult to shit.

[LiquidSky]

Ah, the tolerance of a liberal. :lol:

"We embrace all views....EXCEPT YOURS!!!!"

Just like the tolerance of the conservative. I just love blanket statements. :)

[LiquidSky]

I'm glad you're a tolerance liberal.

Just as you are a tolerant conservative? :)

[LiquidSky]

I don't agree with Buchanan's views but I would not throw anything on him.

[classicman2]

Is Buchanan a conservative?

He certainly has a number of views that I would not associate with conservatives.

[dick_grayson]

I don't agree with Buchanan's views but I would not throw anything on him.


you wouldn't throw yourself onto him? :hscratch:

[Tommy Ceez]

Buchanan is far from being the most odious conservative commentator these days. I think he has evolved a little over the years. Whatever the case, pie-throwing only denigrates the thrower.
Funny, it seems that Buchanan has stayed the same while other conservatives have evolved (hence the paleo-conservative)...BUT...I guess since he disagrees with Bush, in your eyes, he's 'evolved'

[Red Dog]

Is Buchanan a conservative?

He certainly has a number of views that I would not associate with conservatives.


Member of the Religious right? Yes.

Conservative? No.


If he was a true blue conservative, I would have never claimed that he would have gotten my vote had he run for Prez in 2004.

[LiquidSky]

you wouldn't throw yourself onto him? :hscratch:

He's not my type :D

[wendersfan]

I wonder why a man who isn't a conservative would publish a magazine called <i><a href = "http://www.amconmag.com/">The American Conservative</i></a>. Any thoughts?

[wendersfan]

I won't start a new thread about this, but this article seems appropriate:

<b><a href = "http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/03/weekinreview/03nago.html?">Squabbles Under the Big Tent</b></a>
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

COULD this be the same Republican Party that was on such triumphant display after President Bush's re-election just four months ago?

Republicans and conservatives are quarreling over Congress's intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, and the rising influence of Christian conservatives. Some Republicans in Washington and statehouses are balking at federal tax cuts in the face of deficits or spending cuts, while a few are worried that the war in Iraq will lead to more foreign entanglements. Republicans are beginning to whisper in the past tense as they discuss Mr. Bush's signature second-term measure, the revamping of Social Security.

Conservative commentators and blogs are even warning that Republican divisions could turn into turmoil once President Bush begins his fade from power. "The American right is splintering," the sometimes-conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan wrote in a column for The Sunday Times of London headlined, "Bush's Triumph Conceals the Great Conservative Crack-Up."

In truth, a lot of this talk seems overstated. Even Democrats say that Republicans are in a more commanding position than any major party has been in at least a generation. The party has already scored legislative victories this year, including the bankruptcy bill, and remains in accord on the fundamental notions that have guided it since the Reagan presidency: from tax cuts to spending cuts to big investments in the military.

Still, passions unleashed by events since Mr. Bush's second inauguration - the right-to-live-or-die debate in the Schiavo case and the lagging support for the Social Security plan - are testing the governing coalition of conservatives and Republicans, and putting its many wings and factions on display. And there's no reason to think things are going to get easier, as Mr. Bush and Congress turn to rewriting immigration laws and the tax code and prepare for midterm elections.

"We're going through some evolution," said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. "And given the fact that 2008 is the first time in God knows how long that there's going to be an open shot at the presidential nomination, there is going to be a lot of debate in this party about what kind of evolution the Republican Party needs. Arguments on the question of government spending, how activist the government should be."

Richard Norton Smith, a presidential scholar and executive director of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Ill., called it "the maturity of the conservative majority, and with the majority comes this inevitable fracturing."

"Any party in America that aspires to majority status invites a certain level of instability, because it's so complex and diverse a society," Mr. Smith said, adding: "The strains are there and they are profound."

Gone are the days when the Republican Party could easily (if simplistically) be divided into social conservatives versus fiscal conservatives. There are libertarian Republicans, Christian conservative Republicans, moderate Republicans, Wall Street Republicans, balanced-budget Republicans, tax-cutting Republicans, cut-the-size-of-government Republicans, neoconservative Republicans supporting global intervention and isolationist Republicans who would like to stay at home.

And the fault lines always seem to be shifting, depending on the issue. There are fiscal Republicans who are clamoring for rewriting Social Security because it reduces the size of government, and fiscal Republicans who abhor the idea because the Bush plan itself would cost so much money. To a large extent, this is the price of success. No longer does the spotlight focus on differences between Republicans and Democrats. What matters today are debates between Republican and Republican.

The different strains are becoming increasingly apparent as Republicans contemplate life without George W. Bush. . "He's up against a case of classic second term-itis," said Kevin Phillips, an analyst who is a frequent critic of Mr. Bush. "Which means that members of his own party aren't paying a lot of attention to him."

Mr. Smith argued that in many ways, Mr. Bush (with help from his political adviser Karl Rove) managed this jostling coalition of different views with as much as much skill as Roosevelt managed the New Deal coalition and for much the same reason: by the force of personality. What is going on now, Mr. Smith suggested, is that members of that coalition who had lived so peacefully in recent years are seeing an opportunity to expand their influence in the next chapter of American Republicanism.

Some divisions are familiar, if now more brightly illuminated - like the conflict between budget-balancers and tax cutters. But there are new splits as well, as reflected by the various separation-of-powers and federalism issues raised before Terri Schiavo died, when Congress passed legislation allowing a federal court to intervene in her case. It exposed differences of opinions even among stalwarts of the conservative movement: Dr. James C. Dobson, the founder of the evangelical group Focus on the Family, called the removal of Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube the "cold-hearted extermination of an innocent human life." But William F. Buckley Jr. wrote in National Review that it was wrong "to use the killing language," as he argued that Ms. Schiavo should be left alone.

Conflicts between social conservatives and limited-government conservatives had been academic simply because conservatives did not control the federal government. As it was, more than a few conservative Republicans had been uncomfortable with President Bush's push to amend the Constitution to bar gay marriage.

Now, the influence of Christian conservatives has become a source of anguish for some Republicans, as they weigh the considerable contribution the Christian conservatives have made to Republican dominance against what some argue is a threat to party domination in the future.

"It is just out of sync in terms of what the Republican Party has been historically," said John C. Danforth, a former senator from Missouri. "Somehow we've got entangled with this gay issue and this Schiavo issue, and it's a distraction."

But in fact some divisions seem less pronounced now, like the debate over the war in Iraq. "There are a couple of hundred Republicans who for ideological or business or grudge reasons oppose the war and almost all of them are a local phone call away," said David Frum, a former speechwriter for President Bush, speaking from his office in Washington.

The party has achieved some big goals this year, including laws to limit class-action suits. At every turn, party leaders say, Democrats can be counted on to keep Republicans on the reservation, be it by choosing John Kerry as their presidential nominee or Howard Dean as party chairman. "I would say that Hillary Clinton is probably the most unifying thing the Republican Party has," said Stephen Moore, president of the Free Enterprise Fund, an antitax group.

Finally, while Republicans might quarrel on the margins, it seems that they have what the Democratic Party says it is searching for as it recovers from the setbacks of the past three elections: A clear idea of what their party is about, whether they meet those goals or not.

"Republicans are tied together by a relatively coherent vision: They talk about small government, less taxes, small taxes," said Mr. Keene of the American Conservative Union. "That's not going to change."

[classicman2]

I've heard Buchanan described as a Southern Populist by the media.

The media also described George Wallace as a Southern Populist.

I suppose the difference between a populist and a Southern Populist is their stance on the race question. I don't believe that Buchanan shared Wallace's views about segreation, however.

[wendersfan]

I've heard Buchanan described as a Southern Populist by the media.

The media also described George Wallace as a Southern Populist.

I suppose the difference between a populist and a Southern Populist is their stance on the race question. I don't believe that Buchanan shared Wallace's views about segreation, however.I would consider Buchanan a conservative, but one who is no longer in step with the Republican leadership. In a graphic that accompanied the article I just posted, Buchanan's type of conservative is described as:

<b>America First</b>: The isolationist wing, which overlaps with paleoconservatives. Hostile to immigration, affirmative action, the Iraq war and foreign aid.

VOTING BLOC: Rural working class
LEADING SPOKESMAN: Pat Buchanan
MAGAZINE: The American Conservative

Here is a link to the (VERY large) graphic:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/04/02/weekinreview/nwr_GOP_050403.gif

[classicman2]

I wouldn't call Buchanan an isolationist.

I would say he is a non-interventionist. But I differentiate between the two.

[Red Dog]

I would consider Buchanan a conservative, but one who is no longer in step with the Republican leadership. In a graphic that accompanied the article I just posted, Buchanan's type of conservative is described as:[/url]


I don't see it that way since he is anti-interventionist and, more importantly, anti-free trade.

[wendersfan]

You guys need to take it up with <i>The New York Times</i>, not me. :lol:

[weargle]

with salad dressing


http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/POLITICS/04/01/buchanan.attacked.ap/vert.buchanan.ap.jpg

KALAMAZOO, Michigan (AP) -- Commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan cut short an appearance after an opponent of his conservative views doused him with salad dressing.


You lost me at the bolded statement. How about using the world liberal in this article at least once other than in referring to the type of arts that the college is?

[classicman2]

I believe Buchanan has a liberal view about trade - at least the view that the Democratic Party use to espouse.

[Pharoh]

I would consider Buchanan a conservative, but one who is no longer in step with the Republican leadership. In a graphic that accompanied the article I just posted, Buchanan's type of conservative is described as:



Here is a link to the (VERY large) graphic:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/04/02/weekinreview/nwr_GOP_050403.gif



I believe they nailed Buchanan correctly, but think their entire graphic is skewed. As usual, it is in the neocon area where they are the most wrong.

[wendersfan]

I believe they nailed Buchanan correctly, but think their entire graphic is skewed. As usual, it is in the neocon area where they are the most wrong.They really just didn't know what to do with them, IMO.

One of the things that struck me as odd was the axis "less partisan". I think neocons can be less partisan, but often find the Democrats unwilling to reciprocate.

[Pharoh]

They really just didn't know what to do with them, IMO.

One of the things that struck me as odd was the axis "less partisan". I think neocons can be less partisan, but often find the Democrats unwilling to reciprocate.



Likely. It remains disconcerting to see the lack of understanding over this political philosophy.

[wendersfan]

Likely. It remains disconcerting to see the lack of understanding over this political philosophy.Disconcerting but understandable when the only thing about neoconservatism most people ever read about is Middle East policy.

[Pharoh]

Disconcerting but understandable when the only thing about neoconservatism most people ever read about is Middle East policy.


I understand it concerning the average individual, but expect something a bit more from the Times.

[Norm de Plume]

Funny, it seems that Buchanan has stayed the same while other conservatives have evolved (hence the paleo-conservative)
You're right, but I would call it a devolution or regression.
...BUT...I guess since he disagrees with Bush, in your eyes, he's 'evolved'
Incorrect. He agrees with Bush much of the time, but unlike most other Republicans he isn't a toady to a status quo ideology, and he is not afraid to strongly voice his opposition to his party on some issues. I admire him for that, if nothing else.

[Myster X]

maybe his idea of a 13 foot fence along the Rio Grande wasn't a bad idea after all