digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Pat Buchanan LOVED Obama's Convention Speech watch!

youtube.com — Staunch conservative Pat Buchanan had nothing but love for Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the 2008 Democratic national convention given before 85,000 people in Denver's Mile High Stadium. He notes that Barack proved he spoke not as a liberal but as a centrist.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • brandonchicago, on 08/29/2008, -10/+174If Pat Buchanan could say this about Obama, you have to wonder how many other people this speech truly affected. I just hope that people get to hear the whole speech and not just the snippets that the MSM puts out to push their own agendas (*cough CNN, *cough Fox News).
    • brandonchicago, on 08/29/2008, -2/+18And here is the full text for anyone who would like to read it.

      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/28/politics ...
      • jj101, on 08/30/2008, -1/+1posted video but better one below already. digg me down.
    • bluevillage, on 08/29/2008, -2/+12There WILL be a reverse Bradley effect: many people who are voting for Obama who don't want to admit to their redneck neighbors say they're "undecided." Take it from me, Pulse of the Nation.
    • soggyvag, on 08/29/2008, -15/+6"If Pat Buchanan could say this about Obama".

      Pat Buchanan is not any more conservative than Obama is. Liberals and ignorant diggers use Buchanan as a talking point that Obama is moving the republican party.

      Buchanan is OLD SCHOOL conservative aka paleoconservative aka reform NOT Bush conservative. So please don't label Buchanan in a way that makes him seem like a sudden believer - he has had the same beliefs or better for years.

      He is no more an indication of gaining republican territory than is Hillary Clinton's endorsement.
      • WillFight4Beer, on 08/29/2008, -1/+18You make it sound like the neocons have any right to the label "conservatives". Classical conservatives care about small government and low spending, exactly the opposite of the warmongering modern republicans. People need to realize that the democrats are now the party of fiscal responsibility, and that the old labels are ineffective. The only administration with a surplus in recent history was that of Bill Clinton.
      • krebcycle, on 08/29/2008, -0/+13Pat Buchanan is a social conservative, he is pro-life for example.

        He's a bit of an isolationist, and he wants to cut taxes. I don't know how you could call him a liberal.
      • 16x9, on 08/29/2008, -2/+19President Bush isn't a conservative in any way, shape or form. No real political conservative would do the things he's done. That's why his support has dwindled to the point where the only people who are still behind him are closet fascists and those too ignorant to know any better.

        That's my long winded way of saying that while politically I lean to the left, I'm not one of those who are convinced that true conservatives are foolish or evil. In other words, our current administration doesn't reflect them any more than it does me.

        Obama '08
      • mrsteveman1, on 08/30/2008, -1/+11"Buchanan is OLD SCHOOL conservative aka paleoconservative aka reform NOT Bush conservative."

        So in other words, he is ACTUALLY A CONSERVATIVE.
      • oldgal, on 08/30/2008, -0/+5Pat Buchanan used to be considered on the outer edge of extreme right and couldn't get elected for that reason. Compared to today's republican party he looks quite centrist. However, his views have not changed.
      • obeythefist, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3Buchanan is what we all wish conservatives were. He's honest and outspoken. Modern conservatives are either liars or simply quiet about their disgust with where their party is headed.
    • dagnome1984, on 08/29/2008, -7/+3Well it's not shocking that Pat would love the speech. How could a collectivist not like the speech?

    • chassach, on 08/30/2008, -1/+21This is the speech in full on video.

      http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=ato7BtisXzE

      Yes, I know some people have ideological problems with Obama. They should, however, listen to Obama's speech to see if they actually do: low taxes, uninterventionist foreign policy etc sound like classic Republican ideas to me and a conciliatory line on social/moral issues (for instance, an attempt to look for common ground on abortion and gay rights that implies that he is not just going to drive a truck over other people's moral stances). He combines that with a clear personal commitment and track record with family values that his opponent's rather unpleasant history of cheating on his wife can't boast.

      But, ignoring the ideological divides, sometimes I wonder whether there is any doubt in many non-ideological people's minds about this choice.

      If you were appointing to a strategic position in a company that had just lost a lot of money in the last cycle, lost its trading position and failed in its main strategic push and you had two candidates:

      1. A 72 year rich old guy and associate of the old CEO. He is of course well past normal people's retirement age. He is from a highly privileged background who had finished at the bottom of his class at military academy. He repeatedly has senior moments and fumbles key facts about the current situation with the company in his interview. His message is essentially that the existing policies of the company are correct but need a 72 year old like him to run them until he is 76 (or 80? I am not being ageist here but, if you are 76, have you not moved on in life from the 9 to 5 or in the President's case 7 to 10? And when you baby boomers were in your 40s and 50s were you not ready for the batton to be passed to younger men and women?)

      2. A 47 year old man from a unprivileged background who was top of his class at Harvard and has no ties with the existing failed strategy (indeed spoke out against the key strategic push when it was popular and was launched). He insists at interview that there is a need for change and presents a clear, detailed, practical and unextreme strategy for changing the direction of the company. He presents his ideas at interview in an extremely cogent manner.

      If shareholders money were on the line I think I know which candidate would always get the job.
      • Logrusmage, on 08/30/2008, -10/+1How the ***** is he going to lower taxes and raise spending... at the same time? So Obama is the new Bush. Good to know.
      • TheRedNewt, on 08/30/2008, -0/+11@Logrusmage

        As opposed to McCain who is going to continue a bloated military budget that we can't afford and continue creating conflicts while promising to lower taxes?

        Obama will lower taxes...for everyone except the top 1%
      • Quicksilver801, on 08/30/2008, -0/+6Logrusmage he said he was going to close up the tax loopholes the huge corporations get. Like cutting the billion dollar tax breaks the oil companies get.
      • rawg, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2Excellent analogy. I hope someone in the media (looking at you CNBC) picks up this line of thinking as well.
    • Iztikeit, on 08/30/2008, -7/+7Let's see....

      You people (not necessarily the poster, but whomever falls into this category) despise Pat and do not take his words into consideration when he speaks against your opinions, but when he shares your opinion you glorify the guy?

      We need to stop the war on terrorism
      We need to change everything about our current foreign policy
      We need to stop the monopolization of currency and therefore control of our economy
      We need to quit thinking the governments role is to take care of us from cradle to grave
      We need to start holding the government and officials accountable again
      We need to cut most of our spending altogether
      We need a new tax system altogether, not some pointless cuts

      Obama, he brings a change but not the type of change that is actually needed.
      • jj101, on 08/30/2008, -0/+7I dugg you up. I don't agree with you about Obama but you presented an opinion rather than just resorting to futile attacks based on ignorance. If more people could express non-hostile, policy driven arguments the whole world would be better off.

        I thought the speech was fantastic. I will be fascinated to see Mcains.
      • Iztikeit, on 08/30/2008, -1/+7I did present my opinions, because presenting facts and backing up those facts takes far more space that Digg allows.

        I thought Obama's speech was great, if you already think along the same lines.

        The man has a golden tongue and almost had me believing in him but he just does not seem, to me at least, to grasp the true fundamental problems in our country. He recognizes plenty of problems, that is true, but like he says "You need to work from the ground up, not the top down" and the things he is working with are not the fundamentals.

        I am hoping he is holding his more drastic changes and ideas to garner more votes, but I do not see that being the case when he finally gets into the oval office.

        He's certainly going to be better for us than McCain, but I do not think that is reason enough to support him.
      • jj101, on 08/30/2008, -1/+4I agree - he is an amazing speaker and that alone does not necessarily mean he will be an amazing president if elected. Out of interest did you noticed he never mentioned the war on terror. He mentioned terrorists, but never this absurd rhetoric I have heard so much of, about continiung to wage the war on terror to keep America safe.

        I think he might be a great president. I hope he lives up to his promises and that Americans give him the chance to do that. It is just possible that god, if he exists, really did bless America this time.
      • Iztikeit, on 08/30/2008, -1/+2Obama knows he cannot end the war on terrorism. Even if he wanted to he could not.

        This is a real Holy War and it is not going away within the foreseeable future. The methods we are now using lead to two possible paths of destruction.

        One, being the most obvious, is that we "lose" the war on terror and terrorist and terrorist organizations continue to prop up until they eventually "win". How can terrorists win? Well, America needs to fall, which probably will not happen, or America will need to change so drastically that terrorists see it more as an ally than an enemy. This is not likely, but possible.

        The other being an eventual "win" against the war on terror. If that happens America is going to need multiple military bases on every country, continuously monitoring and surveying entire countries and populaces for any uprisings. Is it a victory if America has everyone on the planet under their thumb (and that thumb does not seem destined to go away once it is there)? I do not believe so, but you may. America will always have enemies, because America is nothing more than a complex set of memes. Memes are in constant flux and it is silly to believe America is the ultimate and final solution to this long series of evolutionary ideas. So there will be plenty of wars yet fought against the United States and whomever the next super power is. At least until a meme is created that is so efficient that all competition is immediately eliminated.

        The very idea that we are at war with "terrorism" implies we are at war with . We are not fighting anti-humanists, we are fighting anti-Americans. These are people (or ideas, more accurately) against competing ideas, nothing more.

        There are not always good guys or bad guys. Sometimes the bad guys fight the bad guys.
      • max4077, on 08/30/2008, -0/+0What do you mean, YOU people?
    • FuZi0nDET, on 08/30/2008, -0/+5The first time I heard Buchanan praise Obama was during the Wright scandal and I pissed my self. I honestly believe that he's voting Obama.
    • MiIhouse, on 08/30/2008, -9/+2***** obama
      • cyrix, on 08/30/2008, -1/+2You're just mad because you'll never be a meme.
    • garvin122, on 08/30/2008, -1/+2Is there a site that explains obama's point of view in each subject ex. health care, environment, tax..etc?

      I don't want to go to his site and read everything. I wish I had the time though.
    • Nighthawk357, on 08/30/2008, -0/+0Amen Brother. Amen...
  • metapop, on 08/29/2008, -24/+46i've always appreciated pat buchanan, and i think he's right on... now isn't the time for partisan hacking, it's for identifying and supporting truth... i'm going to write in ron paul, but he's right- this was a great speech.
    • fhbeano, on 08/29/2008, -14/+60>> I'm going to write in Ron Paul...

      Boy, great idea. Even though Ron Paul (as much as I also like him) hasn't got a chance in hell of winning the election, write him in and do your part towards leaving a crack that McCain might squeak through into the White House. It may sound good in your head to write in Paul, but the reality we're stuck with is this: The next president will either be named Obama or McCain. Period. Accept that and decide which one you prefer, and vote that way. Or, throw your vote away with a write-in, but accept the fact that if a candidate gets into office who you don't like, you didn't do anything to stop it.
      • ScottMitchell, on 08/29/2008, -5/+6fhbeano, what does it matter who you vote for if you live in a state that is heavily Republican or Democrat? E.g., Oregon is not going to go McCain's way. So if you live in Oregon, why not vote 3rd party or write in Ron Paul?
      • hiikeeba, on 08/29/2008, -6/+15I'm writing in Ron Paul because I don't like either choice. And I won't vote for someone I don't support.
      • msk275, on 08/29/2008, -2/+7I respect that you will write in who you want to be president. I'm all about choice, and if he's your choice, more power to you.
      • fhbeano, on 08/29/2008, -3/+1ScottMitchell: ugh, yes, the stupidity that is "the Electoral College". Why, why, why does it still exist when we could so easily (and _so_ much more "fairly") just elect with the popular vote? That said, do you really figure Oregon wouldn't go to McCain if he got, say, 65% of the popular vote in that state? Now you've got me curious to start looking back and see how frequently a state goes to a candidate who actually lost the popular vote by a wide margin...
      • pinchduck, on 08/29/2008, -3/+4Yeah, let me adopt your view of how I should vote, that's how democracies work! Vote the way you want, and I shall do likewise. If you don't like how I vote, tough. For my part, I don't give a damn what you do.
      • fhbeano, on 08/29/2008, -3/+8Hey, I suggested he picks the candidate he likes better OR throw away his vote with a write-in. Entirely his choice, I just wanted to remind him that a write-in *is* guaranteed to be a worthless vote, so if he does like one of the two viable candidates a little more than the other, and that candidate doesn't get the presidency, then he was a small part of keeping that candidate out of office. Vote for Snoopy if you want, fine with me... and Snoopy is equally as viable as Ron Paul to win.
      • SeaFour, on 08/29/2008, -7/+2@fhbeano

        You're exactly right, at the end of the day the next President will either be a pro-war/pro-lobbyist Democrat or a pro-war/pro-lobbyist Republican. Third party candidates and write-ins don't stand a chance and that is precisely why so many people have abandoned politics.

        Even under ideal circumstances the best that people can hope for is that the Democrats screw them over slightly less than the Republicans might (or vice versa). If I'm going to get screwed by this great political machine one way or the other then I'd just as soon elect to not be complicit in the process at all.
      • tolbs, on 08/30/2008, -5/+4You should always vote for who you think would be the best person for the job. "A vote for x is a vote for y" is completely ridiculous and it makes my blood boil every time someone tells me that when I claim that I refuse to vote for Joe Democrat or Tom Republican because I disagree with their platform. It is this very state of mind which furthers the 2 party system that is damaging America.
      • audioscience, on 08/30/2008, -3/+1A right-in for Ron Paul will be like voting for Nader in '04.

        Why not be proactive about getting him elected in '12 next time rather than being a fool in '08?
      • diggduggDOOM, on 08/30/2008, -1/+4DO NOT CAST A WRITE-IN VOTE FOR RON PAUL unless you are sure it will be counted. Many states don't even count or record a vote for an unqualified write-in candidate. If Ron Paul (or any other write-in candidate you prefer) does not qualify, your vote will be worth more if it is cast for a qualified candidate that most closely matches the desired policies. In this case, I believe that would be Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party.

        Casting a vote for an unqualified write-in candidate is the same as not casting a vote for President (except that you have the slight chance of getting a chuckle or a groan out of the person working the extremely unlikely recount by hand).

        For the record, I do not support Bob Barr or Ron Paul, but I do support democracy.
      • brycelb, on 08/30/2008, -1/+1@hiikeeba

        Since you were the first to post this idea I will direct it at you but a couple of others have expressed similar thoughts.

        I wish everyone would conduct themselves in this manner. I am completely against what Ron Paul stands for but I would hope you would still vote for him even it it took a vote away for the person I am voting for. I am done with the Football team mentality even though I still think the 2 party system is what makes our country run at optimal speed. I am willing to compromise with my pick because the big picture is most important for me but I really respect the personal conviction it takes to write someone's name in.

        I think the Obama fans are nervous because they think you are taking a vote away from them. I can tell from personal experience that I have never regretted my vote in 1992 even though it meant I was stuck with Bill Clinton as president.
      • rromanchuk, on 08/30/2008, -1/+2"Or, throw your vote away with a write-in"

        And if I vote for someone else.....I'm recycling?
      • EtherGnat, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3@fhbeano: "gh, yes, the stupidity that is "the Electoral College". Why, why, why does it still exist when we could so easily (and _so_ much more "fairly") just elect with the popular vote?"

        I'd like to see the Electoral College system changed as well, but it's just not that big an issue. It's affected only 3 of 55 Presidential elections. Furthermore those three elections were decided by less than 1 million votes (1.5% average margin of victory).

        When the country is that evenly divided you might as well flip a coin to determine who the better President is. I think the country got hosed in 2000, but the situation could have just as easily gone the other way (with Bush winning the popular vote and Gore winning the EC). I know it seems wrong intuitively to be able to win the popular vote and lose an election but we have bigger fish to fry.

        A bigger issue about the electoral college is how it affects campaigning--this helps some states and hurts others. It's good for me. I live in a state with only 5 electoral college votes (about 1 million people) and we're closely divided between Democrat and Republican. We'd totally get ignored if it was done by popular vote. Instead we normally get at least one and sometimes multiple Presidential campaign visits in my city of 100,000 people because we're a battleground state.

        When I lived in California we largely got ignored, however, because CA always goes Democratic.
      • TVarmy, on 08/30/2008, -1/+2I say people should vote for one of the two big candidates, and then write in and ask for run-off elections, so that 3rd parties get a fair chance and let people vote for the 3rd parties they like in the beginning, and then vote for the remaining candidates they most agree with in later elections.
    • mephitix, on 08/29/2008, -2/+12I'm confused, if you're writing in Ron Paul are you saying that Obama and McCain are exactly the same in terms of who is more evil or who you do not like more? Going along with fhbeano, if you like one of them a lot less than the other, then wtf is the point of voting for a guy who doesn't have any chance of becoming President? You're essentially voting for your less-liked candidate to become President.

      So there is the question I'm asking you -- do you think Obama and McCain are equally non-likable?
      • Iztikeit, on 08/30/2008, -1/+3So, I suppose you would have voted for Putin's disciple in the Russian election?
      • MacEnvy, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1@Iztikeit

        No, I would have voted for Gary Kasparov, who was also running. Your question is a complete non sequitor.
    • utexas112, on 08/29/2008, -1/+6And in turn, your vote will not count.
      • deadlikeoscar, on 08/29/2008, -2/+6metapop's vote WILL count. I don't know who started this voting for the lesser of two evils crap, but as an American citizen, we have the right to cast our ballot for the man or woman that we believe in. The only reason that America is locked in a two party system is because we are so afraid that we are throwing our vote away if we don't side with what is popular. metapop will cast a vote for Ron Paul and I will be right there as well doing the same. Not because it is popular, but because Ron Paul is a man I can believe in. You vote for your lesser of two evils...it's people like you that is everything wrong with the political system today.
      • SoulDrift404, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3No, it will count for whichever candidate he would have otherwise chosen.
      • mikemil828, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2//metapop's vote WILL count.//

        Depending on the state he/she lives in it may not count. Some states require a candidate to register as a write-in candidate, and some will not accept write-in candidates for the U.S. presidential election all together. If metapop lives in a state that doesn't accept write in ballots, then his vote will go straight to the trash can along with the rest of the well meaning but otherwise ignorant Paulite votes in that state.
    • vbullinger, on 08/30/2008, -4/+1Hey, you can't do that!

      You must choose:

      Hitler or Stalin.

      Choose...

      CHOOSE!

      No, I'm not saying that McCain and Obama are Hitler and Stalin, but I'm just saying: if you really hate the candidates of the two major parties, then don't vote for them. I won't.

      But a write in is truly a throw away. I think I'll just vote for Bob Barr. If you're liberal, won't you take a look at Cynthia McKinney? Please? She's super cool.
    • PEENkiller, on 08/30/2008, -2/+0And by truth you mean false-truths, right?
  • sharpfork, on 08/29/2008, -6/+147Buchanan: "This is the finest convention speech, I've ever heard!" "It wasn't a liberal speech, it was a unifying speech."
    If I hadn't watched the video, I'd have thought he was taken out of context or something. He genuinely liked the speech. I agree with Pat Buchanan on something...
    • enantiodromia, on 08/30/2008, -1/+2weird, but it happens sometimes :)
    • BossKey, on 08/30/2008, -0/+9I can understand this. Buchanan was Nixon's speechwriter. If Buchanan was evaluating the speech as a fellow speechwriter, looks like he couldn't help but evaluate it on its professional merits as a speech and not its ideology alone.

      I see it as being like when your team plays against a rival sports team whom you're battling intensely, and yet when the rival team executes a brilliant play against you, you say "Damn...that was good," and you mean it.
    • benroy, on 08/30/2008, -1/+3Ditto. I feel violated, conflicted and vindicated all at the same time.
    • mm911, on 08/30/2008, -0/+8People may or may not agree with Pat Buchanan's politics, but above all he's intellectually honest and one of the greatest political thinkers of our time. If someone like an Obama or a Kennedy gives a great speech, Buchanan is going to tell you he did, even if he disagrees with every one of the guy's core policies. If not for his (inexcusable) lapse of judgment regarding his denials of the holocaust years ago, he could have been President. I am happy, however, to see him whenever he is on TV...even if I don't always agree with what he's saying, he is one of the very few commentators that you can be pretty sure actually knows a good amount of what he's talking about.
    • brycelb, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2I thought it was a good speech as well. That doesn't mean I actually believed most of it, but it was good.

      If the Dems want to use PAT BUCHANAN as a reference knock yourselves out. I think most of America decided he was out of his mind about 15 years ago. Not sure what that says about his comments though?
    • TVarmy, on 08/30/2008, -2/+1It was obviously a retired Florida Jew wearing a mask.
  • madjoyish, on 08/29/2008, -6/+64I'm almost tempted to believe he just wants to skew the election by pinning Obama as a centrist, but... no... he actually kind of seems genuine? Amazing. I mean, I agree with him; it was a great, unifying speech... but wow.
    • franklymister, on 08/30/2008, -0/+6Love or hate Buchanan, the one thing you can say about him is that he's always genuine.
    • 911ArtStudent, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3Buchanan HATES neoconservatives and he doesn't hold McCain in high esteem either.
  • ElatusDeus, on 08/29/2008, -4/+61Maddow's face really exemplifies that moment. She looked as if the world was coming to an end.
    • NoireStar, on 08/29/2008, -0/+5She always looks at Pat that way when he talks ... only this time he was not hating on Obama. ;-)
    • acroyear2, on 08/29/2008, -3/+13I think Maddow is so cute.

      And I know, I know. She's gay. I'm the male equivalent of a "fag hag".
    • SeraphX, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1Interesting.
    • Refluence, on 08/30/2008, -0/+5That's the face one makes when bricks are being *****.
      • Conspiracy20, on 08/31/2008, -0/+1Can't help this but while he's TALKING about Vets, they were OUTSIDE threatened with tear gas from riot police. Does THAT sound right to you?
        http://ivaw.org/
        All they wanted was to be recognized!
    • max4077, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1Haha. Yes, her face said it all. From her expression, you could tell she understood the significance of the moment and that had just gained more respect for the man because he rightfully identified it as a "cut the crap" moment for all of us.
    • 911ArtStudent, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1She looked completely flummoxed. If you didn't know any better you would think she was almost offended.
  • NoireStar, on 08/29/2008, -4/+32Keith summed it up in his usual way ... I loved it, especially after listening to Buchanan discuss the lack of "red meat" and "what Obama needs to do" the day before.

    Btw, even Fox News was left speechless for a few seconds!

    "THE TIME IS NOW!"
    • jetboyterp, on 08/30/2008, -8/+3Of Course...MSDNC had a scroll at the bottom asking "How many houses does Palin add to the GOP ticket?"

      Ridiculous. And CNN anchor asking if Palin should be worried more about spending time with her down-syndrome kid. Unreal.

      Nothing beats the Kos Kiddies tho...inferring that Palin's daughter had the baby, and she covered for her.

      The Left is really, really nervous. And desperate.

      • Stavrosian, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2I have to be honest with you - I don't think that the left you speak of is nervous about much at all right now.
      • EtherGnat, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2"Ridiculous. And CNN anchor asking if Palin should be worried more about spending time with her down-syndrome kid. Unreal."

        While it might be tasteless I don't see how you can claim it's biased. The networks will ask anybody questions like that, like they did with Edwards over his wife.
      • foofightrs777, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3Left? There's a left? There's a slightly less right; but no left in America.
  • Berkana, on 08/29/2008, -5/+122I loved Olbermann's summary:

    "There you have it: we had to stop Pat Buchanan gushing over Obama's speech for the sake of time. Perhaps that will tell you the story better than anything we could say."

    Nice. ^_^
    • benroy, on 08/30/2008, -0/+5I wish Olbermann was my *real* dad....
      • brycelb, on 08/30/2008, -9/+1WOW!!! How depressing. You are a lost soul.
      • praisethelard, on 08/30/2008, -0/+5I wish Olbermann was one of my dads.
  • vroom101, on 08/29/2008, -5/+35Excerpts from United States Senator Barack Obama's magnificent speech "The American Promise" on 8 August 2008, via "Video: Barack Obama at Mile High -- "The American Promise" posted by Sam Graham-Felsen on August 29th, 2008 at 12:42 am EDT at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samg ... (my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gG5l5C):


    Excerpt #1: ". . . But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the nay-sayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you. For eighteen long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us -- that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it -- because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time. America, this is one of those moments."

    Excerpt #2: ". . . The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America -- they have served the United States of America. So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first."


    Full video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZCrIeRkMhA
    • CamperBob, on 08/29/2008, -10/+1I don't get it. This sounds like the speech from the candidate in "Taxi Driver."
    • vroom101, on 08/29/2008, -1/+2Date correction...

      magnificent speech "The American Promise" on 28 August 2008
  • DuggDowner, on 08/29/2008, -22/+7If Obama can win over a Nazi with his speech it must've been good.
    • gotacalc, on 08/29/2008, -5/+1Applying that logic to Hitler, you're crazy.
    • plimpton777, on 08/29/2008, -3/+7That "Nazi" was more against the illegal invasion of Iraq than the Senate Democrats. Pigeon-hole often?
      • Berkana, on 08/29/2008, -5/+2I don't think Pat Buchanan was a Senate Democrat. He ran for president under the Republican party several times.
      • brycelb, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3Berkana-

        I don't think reading comprehension is your strong suite.
    • Wamzlee, on 08/29/2008, -1/+3I'm calling Godwin's Law on you DuggDowner.
    • glennkachmar, on 08/29/2008, -1/+4Why do people feel they have to inject the word nazi into every comment? I'm no fan of Buchanon, but a nazi?
  • dinobot, on 08/29/2008, -4/+45... cats & dogs living together, mass hysteria~
  • StupotAce, on 08/29/2008, -5/+41Did hell freeze over?
    • benroy, on 08/30/2008, -1/+10Sarah Jessica Parker is still unattractive, so....no.
  • swrostmore, on 08/29/2008, -2/+11The second best part of this video is the guy chanting "impeach Bush" in the background right as Buchanan is talking about centrism.
  • ProKid, on 08/29/2008, -4/+18I'm a registered Democrat and I mainly watch MSNBC. But I do love Pat Buchanan.
    • chispito, on 08/29/2008, -10/+3Really? I'm a registered Republican and you can have him.
    • FreddieD, on 08/29/2008, -2/+3I'm sure most registered Republicans also love Alan Colmes.
    • acroyear2, on 08/29/2008, -2/+4Pat's sometimes an ass but he's often a good sport.
    • brycelb, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1I smell mounds of ***** in this post.

      Why do people question the tactics of politicians when it's obvious that the masses will completely disregard their core principles when you make a statement they like.
  • cbodall, on 08/29/2008, -36/+3then he's an idiot
  • Drifton, on 08/29/2008, -3/+56Haha that is awesome.

    I love how Rachael is looking at him like "Who the ***** is this, and where is Pat?"
    • KLBP, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1I thought the whole panel had a bewildered stare at Buchanan. It was like they wanted to ask, "who are you and what did you do to Pat?"
  • betocool, on 08/29/2008, -5/+7he has a boner just talking about it
  • sockpuppets, on 08/29/2008, -3/+23I really like Pat Buchanan. While i disagree with many of his opinions I respect the guy for being intelligent and well spoken about them.
    • mikelist, on 08/30/2008, -2/+2i think he's an idiot, but he does have a sense of integrity i can respect independently of his actual opinions.
    • thecoolestguy, on 08/30/2008, -3/+2The guy is right on about every thing.
    • ganymede2010, on 08/30/2008, -1/+4I agree, eventhough Pat comes off as bigoted sometimes I will never doubt his political brilliance. When Pat is talking I'm always listening, even if I disagree, which is often.
    • charlietuna, on 08/30/2008, -1/+4I meet as many intolerant Liberals as I do intolerant Conservatives, in fact I live in NYC so I meet more intolerant Liberals here. The problem is that the GOP has perfected the politics of demonizing the left and the Left, lacking a similar tradition of authoritarianism, simply can't effectively respond in a unified way. Maybe the left is also too fractious, though much of the GOP is split between fundamentalists and Ron Paul type small government folk, so it's a wash.

      Point is it is refreshing to see a politician take a step back from the dumb ass theatrics that stymie everything in Washington. Some neocons really believe in the inherent goodness of the USA, and although they might seem from here to be war mongers, I don't think that's exactly the case. Now I know anyone reading is wondering: Is this guy right or left of center? None of the above, and that is what i like about Buchanan, he doesn't fit the mold (though he's mostly a Libertarian).
  • tajitj, on 08/29/2008, -17/+7Imagine what he will think of Ron Pauls speech at the Rally for the Republic. Paul talks issues.
    • ScottMitchell, on 08/29/2008, -1/+12Ron Paul is a horrible impromptu orator. I like his stance on many issues, but he is absolutely awful at live interviews and in debates. He doesn't do a good job organizing his thoughts and making a statement with a beginning, middle, and end. He jumps around too often, and comes across sounding like that crazy uncle we all have.

      Don't get me wrong, he's clearly a bright guy and has some interesting ideas. He's just not very good at communicating them on the spot, IMO.
  • S5S5S5, on 08/29/2008, -3/+26His speech gave the Chinese Olympics a run for its' money, lol,
    80k stadium with more US TV viewers (38 mil) than for the Olympic opening ceremonies.
    • FreddieD, on 08/29/2008, -0/+15This time with no lip syncing!
    • jetboyterp, on 08/30/2008, -7/+4Celebrity!

      • EtherGnat, on 08/30/2008, -0/+7Yes, it's so horrible to have a Presidential candidate people are actually enthused about.
    • KLBP, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2That 38 million viewers doesn't even count PBS or C-Span. Can you imagine the total viewership if those two were counted? PBS is estimating around 4 million viewers saw it on PBS.
  • mickrussom, on 08/29/2008, -20/+6I guess I'm a criminal because Obama seemed to want to take my AK-47. I dont know why we have politicians who spend some part of the day taking away rights from people.
    • soot, on 08/29/2008, -3/+11I only ask this out of my own curiosity, but what the ***** do you need an AK-47 for.
      • dagnome1984, on 08/29/2008, -6/+6Why the ***** do you "need" a computer? You don't. Maybe we should ban those too, because their impact on the environment is horrible. Funny how you get up in arms only when someone targets something you like.

        "***** the liberty of others, Me! Me! Me!"


      • jj101, on 08/30/2008, -1/+4dagnome1984 - There is no getting around your argument. If you can ban one thing, why not any other.

        That said, computers are useful. They are a constructive tool. An AK-47 is not useful or constructive unless you are trying to kill people. The quote from Oboma is,

        "...but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."

        Do you not think it would be acceptable if items that are designed specifically to kill people (the AK is no hunting rifle) were more restricted than items like computers? If not then using your logic, where does that end? Should anyone who has the money be able to buy a nuclear warhead?

        I think Obamas take on the situation was pretty good.

        Also plenty of people do need computers to earn a living. They cannot do their jobs without a computer. There is nobody in America who needs an AK-47 to do their job. Not one.

      • BabyWookie, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3I don't know about him, but I keep mine because it's fun and cheap to shoot and seems like it would come in handy in an event of a major catastrophy and collapse of society.
      • jj101, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3@Babywookie - "it would come in handy in an event of a major catastrophy and collapse of society." That is exactly what I would want one for too, to be fair.
      • dagnome1984, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2"That said, computers are useful. They are a constructive tool." Humanity has lasted one million years without them. No one needs a computer. People might want computers but that is different than a need.

        "Also plenty of people do need computers to earn a living. They cannot do their jobs without a computer. There is nobody in America who needs an AK-47 to do their job. Not one."

        They can work other jobs without them. Again there is no "need" only wants when it comes to modern technology. Hammanity has lasted long enough without them.

        The point is we can come up with any number of stupid reasons to trample on the rights of another.


      • jj101, on 08/31/2008, -0/+1@dagnome - I know you probabky won't read this but your last comments is not true. People need computers for lots of jobs these days. You can say they can work on other jobs but that is not the same as doing the job they are doing now, for which they need a computer.

        Using your logic people don't need gus to hunt. They could always use a bow and arrow or do something else. They might want a gun to kill a bear but all they need is a rock.

        This type of thinking is just anti-pregressive and childish.
    • SpinningHead, on 08/29/2008, -1/+14Did you actually listen to the speech? He referred to keeping AKs out of the hands of criminals. Are you a criminal? Incidentally, I am a liberal gun owner.
      • ScottMitchell, on 08/29/2008, -6/+3Which is an odd thing to say. How many politicians are demanding that we put AKs in the hands of criminals?
      • SpinningHead, on 08/30/2008, -1/+3Some on the right have repeatedly opposed closing things like the gun show loophole.
      • jj101, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2@Scott - Your comment is odd too. Who said any "politicians are demanding that we put AKs in the hands of criminals" ? The point Obama made in the speech was that criminals do have these weapons and the legislation could be changed to prevent that from happening while still protecting the rights of people who want to own guns that are designed for purposes other than killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
      • brycelb, on 08/30/2008, -1/+1That all sounds great except we try to keep ALL GUNS out of the hands of criminals. I don't see the need to point to AK's. It's a typical liberal talking point and nothing more.
    • lolupissed, on 08/29/2008, -3/+11He said he wanted to take AK47s from criminals. Are you a criminal?
      • dagnome1984, on 08/29/2008, -10/+3Coming from a bureaucrat like Obama he would probably consider anyone who exercises the 2nd amendment a criminal. Who else would he be talking about other than lawful ownership? We already have laws that target criminal possession of weapons.


    • USNavyBlue, on 08/29/2008, -3/+5GOA - Gun Owners of America - Google it - Obama scored a D - he is a gun grabber.

      Officially McCain scored an F-! Truly pathetic gun grabber.

      And no I am no fan of either because of their voting records - I know I entered a hornets nest by saying I DON"T LIKE OBAMA OR McCAIN. Digg me down - I don't care. The facts speaks volumes.
    • bagelmaster, on 08/30/2008, -1/+8Obama is not going to take your damn guns away. There is a political process to go through, and all those people sitting in the House and Senate will not allow them to be taken away. The President is only one person in the Government. People often forget this...
    • samyoungguitar, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2No.. you're just a ***** idiot. Go back to school, take your vitamins.
  • honutt, on 08/29/2008, -4/+10Well shucks Pat... com'eer *big hug*
  • mkameli, on 08/29/2008, -9/+4Pulling at our "spleen?" Odd choice of a word.
  • NelsonR, on 08/29/2008, -9/+0A tiger never changes stripes and Buchanan would have McCain supreme any day of the week. The man is an avowed racist and Republican conservative with his sister next to his side. Being delusional by accepting Buchanan's rhetoric for one day changes nothing. He would suck up to Bush/McCain if the chance were afforded him any day, any hour and any minute. The man is a true Republican Conservative Nationalistic Jerk. It all equals to why America is despised by the world.
    • bob_the_alien, on 08/29/2008, -0/+3Do you know anything about Buchanan, he's nothing like a neocon, and def not a racist. Yes he is a conservative, but if you understood what a conservative really is, you'd know that Bush/McCain are not. They are the complete opposite.
    • JigoroKano, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3Buchanan isn't any more racist than the average American, he's just more honest and doesn't censor himself.
    • solefald, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1he is also not a Republican. He let his card expire in 2001.
    • 911ArtStudent, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2Buchanan absolutely hates neocons. He does not like McCain one bit. Moreover when he ran for President back in 2000, he chose a black woman as his runningmate.
  • arcangelgabriel, on 08/29/2008, -2/+20Pat Buchanan? I had to run outside after watching to make sure the world wasn't about to swing into the sun...
  • mochaman, on 08/29/2008, -2/+22 At least Pat Buchanan knows because he was a speech writer himself for Nixon, but I find It amazing that the partisan hacks over at Fox Noise could not bring themselves to recognize a great speech when the hear one. These right winger live such delusional existence, even if you were to hit them with the truth in their faces they would denied it stick their heads in the sand.
  • allnone, on 08/29/2008, -5/+6Hell froze over?
  • Pillage, on 08/29/2008, -16/+2well that makes me dislike his speech even more. Pat's a nutcase, has been always will be,
    • enantiodromia, on 08/30/2008, -1/+3i lost count of all the logical fallacies you committed in so few words.
      • Pillage, on 08/31/2008, -0/+1you're the one that is praising an anti-Semite just because he sucks Obama's *****. Have you even read his latest travesty he calls a book?
    • samyoungguitar, on 08/30/2008, -1/+3wow.. you are a ***** dip *****.
  • c010rb1indusa, on 08/29/2008, -3/+20It looks like Pat was almost speechless. For someone like him who has been on the right of everything and has been involved with Washington for a long time, for a political speech to throw him off balance and be flabbergasted like that is just amazing. Obama is right, something has been stirring...

    Obama
    Biden 2008
  • Rusticles, on 08/29/2008, -7/+99I'm a republican and I'm voting for Obama
    • Clusterfrak, on 08/29/2008, -0/+27Preach it brother same here. McCain picked Palin as his VP. Why? becuse he wants the Hillary and evangelical vote. (still trying to wrap my head around hillary and evangelicals) If Mccain wanted a qualified female republican I would have gone for Elizabeth Dole oh wait she's to liberal for the evangelicals. You know during the vice presidential debates biden will chew her up and the right will portray him as a misogynistic tool.
      • Bamont, on 08/30/2008, -8/+2And Obama picked Biden because he wants the older white vote.
      • Clusterfrak, on 08/30/2008, -0/+5Yeah but Bidens qualified. He has years of experience on the national level to back him up.
      • Bamont, on 08/30/2008, -2/+1@cluster

        If only that's what were always being argued on these points. But it isn't - here on Digg, people focus almost exclusively on McCain picking her because she's a woman. Very few people are discussing openly about her ability to be a Vice President (which in and of itself, does nothing).
      • heliox, on 08/30/2008, -5/+1The DNC picked Obama for the Black vote...

        Nothings for free
      • lharrod, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1"You know during the vice presidential debates biden will chew her up and the right will portray him as a misogynistic tool"

        I think that's what they're counting on. They're hoping that people will dislike Biden for bullying a pretty young mother of a child with Downs. Meanwhile, she can attack him and will get lauded for being strong.

        The strategy of choosing her reminds me of Curly from 'Of Mice And Men.' Curly was a short, mean man that liked to pick fights with large men. If he won, he came across as tough for defeating a large man. If he lost, the large man would be looked at like a bully for beating up a little guy.

        Man, I would have loved to see a debate between Palin and Clinton, but I don't think that would have ever happened. If Obama chose Clinton, then McCain would have chosen Romney.
      • allengeer, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1The DNC did not pick Obama because he was black. It's actually because he is a great person, with great policies, great views,and great oratory abilities.. the color of his skin, is irrelevant. That does not make a great president. A great mind and a great ability to lead make a great president.
    • bubba9999, on 08/30/2008, -1/+22Dugg up for voting your conscience instead of down the party line.

      I wish more people did that.
    • audioscience, on 08/30/2008, -1/+7Thank God. Senses, coming to.

      America thanks you sirs.
    • bagelmaster, on 08/30/2008, -1/+16I'm registered Republican but I dance the line depending on issues. Voting Obama in November though.
      • lharrod, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1I'm registered Democrat, and I, too, dance the line depending on issues. Judging from his speech, I believe Obama is the same way.
    • kephas, on 08/30/2008, -0/+12Republican here as well. This will be the third presidential election I vote in and it'll be the first in which I vote Democrat (you can figure out what that means). Now I see that the country is headed in the wrong direction, and with someone I used to support in the driver's seat. I think it's time for a new driver with different directions and I just don't see that with McCain.
    • dkalmar, on 08/30/2008, -3/+4I am genuinely and deeply heartened to hear this from Republicans. I've never understood why it's "Republican vs. Democrat"; we're all Americans, moreover we're all just people on this planet. Why would anyone decide they will vote for a candidate just because that candidate is tied to a given party?

      But specifically, why would anyone be hoodwinked and brainwashed into voting for a chimp-faced cowboy who doesn't have the brains to comprehend basic grammar and pronunciation much less international diplomacy and domestic policymaking.

      Every single person who voted for Bush makes me sad for the human race. Seriously.

      So if you're all finally coming back to your senses because of Obama, well frankly, it's way past due: if you had had sense 8 years ago we wouldn't be at 4,000 deaths in Iraq and counting.

      That blood is on the hands of those that voted for Bush.
  • akchrs, on 08/29/2008, -24/+2To bad no one could care less because of the big news that McCain chose Palin as his VP.

    McCain
    Palin 2008
    • Buddhaismybuddy, on 08/29/2008, -0/+6Which is also good for Obama.

      Obama
      Biden
      2008
      • akchrs, on 08/29/2008, -6/+1I smell fear in your reply

        McCain
        Palin 2008
    • samyoungguitar, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1Akchrs.. you're ignorant.
  • Suilenroc, on 08/29/2008, -11/+11I'm quite surprised. To those that don't know, Buchanan is usually the lone centrist/conservative viewpoint on MSNBC, with the rest of them ranging from center-left to so-far-left-it's-almost-socialism, and even he couldn't stop himself from basically melting over his speech. I went to a party with local democrats last night to watch this speech, and I knew that their reaction was to be expected, but to see, of all people, Pat Buchanan literally go on and on and on about it really says something about this speech.
    • SteveIsTheDude, on 08/30/2008, -1/+2Those times Buchanan rips into Rachel are on set.... Maybee Buchanon cant keep from pandering to a crowd (they had a live crowd).... You know if he had said even a single harsh word he would have been booed.... didn't want to get booed???? Being booed does not feel good.... Maybee he has feelings..... Just a theory.....
    • nemo001, on 08/30/2008, -4/+2MSNBC is about to tank. Buchanan praised Obama. MSNBC signs Buchanan's paycheck. Connection? Mmm yeah.
    • nixfu, on 08/30/2008, -4/+1Buchanan is not a conservative. Hes not even a republican. He is a tard.


    • kaskarn, on 08/30/2008, -0/+5I smile each time I see the adjective "far-left" applied to an american. The most socialist of your main personalities are at the center on a global political scale.
  • Richandler, on 08/29/2008, -11/+5It was a great speech. They filled a stadium with millions of dollars worth of presentation, a good speaker and a decent written speech. Doesn't mean he isn't full of *****.
    • charlietuna, on 08/29/2008, -4/+3Man, I wonder how dugg down that will get you. If I even hint Obama is not the black messiah I am thumbed down to hades.
    • MinervaDreaming, on 08/29/2008, -1/+3Doesn't mean he is, either.
    • nemo001, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1That was witty and well written.
    • charlietuna, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1He's no more fuller of ***** than your classic politician. Obama is - by his own admission - a blank screen upon which others project their desires. Of course he'd be happy to keep things that way. One thing for certain, he is miles better than dumb ass Dubya.

      Keep in mind a lot of the 68% or so who disapprove of Bush dislike him because he is not as right of center anymore. Scary but true, there are people like John Bolton who want us to invade Iran and fix everything. So we come full circle to small government types like (you guessed it) Ron Paul. At least Ron isn't for small government part of the time, like most of the GOP. Cut the judges if they rule in favor of the ACLU, but reward them if they rule in favor of the executive branch. The only thing I hate more than far Right/far Left is the pandering hypocrite.
    • samyoungguitar, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1God damn you're ***** dumb.
  • DiggGeek24, on 08/29/2008, -3/+8Pat Buchanan:

    http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/buchana ...

    "AIDS is nature's retribution for violating the laws of nature."
    "outrage many, many people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue and perhaps worse.... Others consider him the Devil incarnate. Dr. King is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history. "
    "Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free."

    Hmmmm what a nice man

    /s

    • thecoolestguy, on 08/30/2008, -0/+5*AIDS spreads by anal sex among promiscuous people primarily. It spreads very slowly among people who only have vaginal sex and are not promiscuous.

      *Dr. King plagiarized larges parts of his doctorates thesis and had many affairs with other women. There are many other things that popular culture does not mention about Dr. King.

      Why do you have to take cheap shots at Buchanan for him having the courage to step outside of the politically correct boundaries and tell the truth?

      You prefer spineless public figures that repeat politically correct mantras?

      "Yes you do!"
    • vat0r, on 08/30/2008, -1/+2Men soften in their old age. Pat is a good old boy and while most of his beliefs are completely twisted Obama proved that he still has a heart in there somewhere. When O inspires Pat amazing things are happening.
  • Suilenroc, on 08/29/2008, -9/+3Oh, great, digg me down for pointing out things to people who may not have known it. Good job.
    • akchrs, on 08/29/2008, -0/+7I dugg you down for whining about being dugg down.
    • nemo001, on 08/30/2008, -0/+4Consider it a badge of honor. Rage on against the digg machine. Rage! Never conform. Speak your mind. Never conform. Be your own person. blah blah blah ... blah blah
      • Suilenroc, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1I would, but then I may be mistaken for being a Ron Paulite.
  • tantive5, on 08/29/2008, -6/+3Some of Buchanan ideas are every bit as as loony as the Rep' NeoConArtist Jesus Freaks, but his thoughts on the speech were spot on.
  • ROMMExL, on 08/30/2008, -1/+8I'm not a Republican and I'm voting for Obama!

    ?

    Yeah, that makes me a Democrat...
  • sweetholymosiah, on 08/30/2008, -10/+2Pat Buchanan is a ratings hog. He'll say whatever is most appropriate for his sense of popularity.
  • SteveIsTheDude, on 08/30/2008, -4/+9I watched this live, then flipped over to Fox to hear somebody rip in to him (cause the MSNBC folkes have really drank the Koolaid) , and friggin' Bill Oreally liked it too! Dude, I am for Obama but its kinda weird when EVERYBODY likes him! Damn!!
    • JigoroKano, on 08/30/2008, -1/+4Why can't a speech just be good?

      You don't have to vote for him because he's a good speech writer.
    • allengeer, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1why is weird when someone unites people under a common cause and a common sense of unity. Its miraculous. Its astounding. It is the only way humanity can ever hope to survive. When we start thinking as one being, instead of several individual nation-states, then we can choose to explore the cosmos and understand the universe we exist in. Until then, we are confined to this planet, wallowing in our own petty bickering, waiting for the next big global catastrophe to wipe us out.

      Quit standing on the blocks of division, and join the block of united thinking. Where the debate is not in the interest of my group of people, but in the interest of our group of people.
      • SteveIsTheDude, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2You can keep your "united thinking", I will subscribe to "critical thinking"... I don't think people disagreeing about things is "holding back" us puny earthlings from doing anything and to the contrary, I believe conflict creates growth and the leaps in technology that will be needed for us to explore the stars.

        A passive, "united" world will never accomplish ***** and will stagnate on its own perceived victory of unity.
  • rmeddy, on 08/30/2008, -1/+30Okay who divided by zero?
  • Iztikeit, on 08/30/2008, -6/+7Buchanan is praised when he compliments with Obama but is degraded when he does not?

    Buchanan did not suddenly stop being the same Buchanan. The guy is still extremely ignorant of reality and his opinion should not all of a sudden be trusted, just because he agrees with the majority for once.

    Does it show that Obama made a compelling speech? Possibly. But I really do not see how you could use this as any sort of evidence.

    But now that he agrees with Obama Buchanan's insane antics and beliefs are in the past? >_> Oy! The man is totally out of touch with reality!
    • nixfu, on 08/30/2008, -1/+1I guess people think that Buchanan is a conservative or something because they pretend he is on MSDNC....but I got news for you..... NO ONE THINKS HE IS ANYTHING but a total joke now for about 10 years now in the world of conservative politics.

      MSDNC pretending he represents the conservative voice is like asking Al Sharpton to be the lone voice of liberalism on Fox and pretending he represents all of the left wing.

      • bubba9999, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2A ton of the right doesn't like Buchanan because he calls the party out on stupid stuff all the time. Nothing ingratiates you to a party like failing to be another Yes man.
      • Allerious, on 09/03/2008, -0/+0He is the genuine voice of paleo-conservativism, a picture of what the party used to be.

        Buchanan is right on many things. He's a great guy.
  • kingcam, on 08/30/2008, -1/+8This is hilarious. I have always said that the best part of Buchanan is that you know he means what he says, I mean if the guy was willing to write a book, a good one (if flawed) at that, about how Churchill was one of the bad guys then you know he isn't lying about the election.
  • nemo001, on 08/30/2008, -8/+3The metamorphosis of Pat Buchanan: Hated for so long by so many but suddenly, he's ok; he "...LOVED Obama's convention speech". I doubt I am alone in thinking that it is such simple minded and shallow thinking that can drive people away from (or maybe, better put, towards) Obama. I personally HATED his book about how negotiating with Hitler and the Third Reich would have been a good thing. Buchanan is up to something with his, possibly disingenuous, praise.
    • Iztikeit, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1Not only is he a nutbasket but he is a nutbasket that influences multitudes of people!

      The moment we start recognizing real religious leaders.....
    • 911ArtStudent, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1Did you even buy his book? You don't seem to know the title. That's odd considering that the book only came out a few weeks ago.
  • nixfu, on 08/30/2008, -5/+2Peggy Noonan, who is probably one of the greatest speech writers in history, was openly laughing at Obamas speech and said it was nothing but a run of the mill state of the union laundry list of promises.

    She had me outloud laughing with some of her jokes(2 headed babies), and she is usually such as serious and thoughtful speaker it was a trip.


    • mindfeck, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3She said it was a strong speech and was not the typical democrat speech.
      • nixfu, on 08/30/2008, -1/+1Actually she said it reminded her of Bill Clinton's yearly state of the union addresses where every year he would promise all sorts of new programs and *****....every year its 100,000 new teachers here, 10 babies with 5 heads to cure there etc...
  • jeffness, on 08/30/2008, -0/+5goldwater's speech in 64 was also very good.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1866117/pos ...
  • nixfu, on 08/30/2008, -7/+2Video of the legendary political speech writer Peggy Noonan making fun of Obama's state of the union er acceptance speech here on MSNBC this morning:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-220067755 ...


    I was laughing out look and nearly lost my breakfast with her jokes.
    • mindfeck, on 08/30/2008, -1/+3She was not making fun of it. You need to work on your comprehension skills.
  • hutectro, on 08/30/2008, -7/+4I personally think the best speech give at DNC was from Al Gore if he was running for president he would win easy Barack Obama would be Al Gore's Vice President.
    ----------
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZq6qLePsME&eurl=ht ...
  • ganymede2010, on 08/30/2008, -1/+3Quick, look outside, Pigs are Flying by!
  • papamike, on 08/30/2008, -7/+3Anybody else catch the Macbook Pro sitting on the MSNBC desk?
    • ssj2119, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1...yeah? and? How many people have macbook pro's, it's not special.
      • ZebZ, on 08/30/2008, -0/+0Microsoft is the MS in MSNBC. That's the joke... that a network of which Microsoft owns a significant share, uses products from Microsoft's chief competitor.
  • kernel16, on 08/30/2008, -1/+4This plus the fact that John Mccain's VP pick reminds me of that cheesy terrible short run show on ABC Commander in Chief... The similarities are crazy, Conservative candidate picks a woman to be VP he dies on her with a heart attack I think and BANG she becomes the first female president, too bad she isn't an independent.
  • justiceape, on 08/30/2008, -11/+4If you get excited about someone because of a speech they gave, you are a ***** moron, I'm sorry. No actual content, just more of the same meaningless hyperbole.
    • hutectro, on 08/30/2008, -1/+3This is how politicians get elected they say words to make people feel good
      They tell the people what they want to hear so they can make themselves
      the leader that can solve all their problems that's how these people get you
      to vote for them. Don't be so negative i can't stand any of them they make promises that they don't keep BIG ON TALK but do little
      • justiceape, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1We so deserve what we get as a country it's not even funny.
    • dougwastaken, on 08/30/2008, -1/+1it's hard not to get excited about electing someone into the oval office who doesn't have chronic diarrhea of the mouth.
      • nixfu, on 08/30/2008, -1/+1ummmmm you mean uhhhhh the ummmmm sort of uhhhhhh ummmmmmm diarrhea that ummmmm makes you ummmmmmm sound like uhhhhhhh retard whenever uhhhhhhh ummmmm obama tries to speak without a ummmmm teleprompter???

      • dougwastaken, on 09/01/2008, -0/+1vid plz :D
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.